Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16803
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Christ
Merveilles Kouvouama
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Christ Merveilles Kouvouama, Congo DR
Represented by Talel Ben Hadj
RESPONDENT:
NPFC, Thailand
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16803
I. Facts of the case
1.
Allegedly, on 1 July 2024, the Congolese player Christ Merveilles Kouvouama (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant) and the Thai club NPFC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
signed an employment agreement valid as from the aforementioned date until the end of
the Thai League 1 2024/2025 season (hereinafter: the Alleged Contract).
2.
According to the Alleged Contract (quoted verbatim):
“1. Term
"The Club" agree to acquire the federative and economic rights of "the player" to play in Thai
league as well asany other competitions as informed by “The Club” contract starting from 1 July
2024 (Start training with the team) until the end of the Thai League 1 season 2024-2025 and
with the following terms:
1.1. In case the club cannot register the player or transfer the federative & economic rights, the
club has theright to terminate the contract without any compensation to the player.
1.2. The contract will be eligible only when the player has passed the medical test by the club
doctor or a hospital assigned by the club and submitted all necessary health record to the club.
2. Salaries, Wages and Other Benefits
2.1. Salary: 5000,000 THB per month.
2.2. Sign fee with agent fee 500,000 THB
2. Bonus for match win as team share. (Have Every game win )
3. Club will provide house rental allowance 10,000 THCB, car and visa for player and wife.
4. The club will give 2 ticket economy class round trip ( Congo Brazzaville to Bangkok – donthani
) and
( Udonthani – Bangkok to Congo Brazzaville )
5. Health Insurance for the player covers during the contract period.
6. This contract would be fully effective upon the completion of registration via TMS system. And
also player must pass medical check-up from the club and can register with FAT to play
Thaileague 1 season 2024-2025. ( if not contract being terminated. Both parties agree that no
compensation will be requested, made or claimed.
7. MR. KOUVOUAMA CHRIST MERVEILLES agrees not to negotiate with other clubs for the
following season until he has first spoken and negotiated with Nongbua Pitchaya Football Club.
8. Buyout of contract: shall be an agreement between the two parties
[…]
6. Cancelation
In case termination of the contract the two parties agree to receive compensation 1 month
salary.”
3.
On an unspecified date, the Player signed a contract with the Iraqi club Al-Karkh
Educational and Sports Club for Football. Under this contract, the Player was entitled to
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16803
USD 15,000 as a contract advance and a monthly salary of USD 5,500, paid at the end of
each calendar month for the period from 1 September 2024 to 30 June 2025. Said contract
further stipulated that it had a total value of USD 70,000 and that the Player’s income
referred to net amounts in the State of Iraq.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4.
On 29 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
5.
The Player lodged a claim with FIFA for outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
6.
According to the Player, the Club formally extended an offer to him by way of the Alleged
Contract, which was facilitated through an intermediary. As proof of the foregoing, the
Player proffered evidence of WhatsApp conversations with a Mr. Henry Doumbia, whom
he identified as an intermediary.
7.
However, the Player alleged he never received his visa or flight tickets from the Club. The
Player alleged that he continued to inquire about his visa and flight tickets throughout the
month of July but did not receive either. In addition, the Player alleged having reached out
to the intermediary in July to seek clarification, to no avail.
8.
The Player also alleged that he inquired about his ITC with his former club, Al Wehdat FC in
Jordan, which confirmed that his ITC had never been requested by the Club.
9.
Moreover, the Player alleged he had reached out to the intermediary in late August, and
that he informed the Player that he had been unable to reach the Club for several weeks.
10. Hence, by the time the transfer window had closed in Thailand – 15 August 2024 – the
Player submitted that he had neither been registered nor had he travelled to Thailand.
11. The Player argued that he was entitled to outstanding remuneration in the amount of THB
1,000,000 (July and August salaries) plus THB 500,000 as signing fee, as well as
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of THB 500,000 and pursuant to Article
6 of the Alleged Contract.
12. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to determine that
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16803
the Club terminated the employment relationship with the Club without just cause and to
order the Club to pay him the following amounts:
• 14779 USD x 2 Months + 14779 USD as signing fees = 44 337 USD + 10% interest as
from the relevant payment dates until the date of effective payment.
• 14779 USD as the amount due as compensation for breach of contract + 10% interest
until the date of effective payment
• 1500 USD for the Moral Damage caused to the player who is staying until the end of
the Season without a team.
• 500 USD as Translation Costs.
In addition, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to impose sporting sanctions on the Club for
breach of contract within the protected period.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Club alleged that the document brought forth by the Player as the Alleged
Contract was a fabrication, indicating that it had never offered an employment contract or
entered into an employment contract with the Player and that the Player (or more
specifically, his agent, in conjunction with a Mr. Bernard Henry Cedric Doumbia and others)
had falsified the Alleged Contract.
14. The Club explained that it had reached out to another player via Instagram, Mr. Bernard
Henry Cedric Doumbia, in order to offer him an employment contract. The negotiation with
Mr. Doumbia progressed via the messaging app Line and culminated in a signed contract
with him (hereinafter: the Doumbia Contract). The Club then proceeded to arrange his visa
and flight tickets, and Mr. Doumbia and his wife travelled to Thailand on 27 July 2024. The
Club also submitted that Mr. Doumbia ultimately terminated his contract with the Club and
appeared to have joined a new club on 3 August 2024.
15. As to the forgery and falsification allegations, the Club highlighted several observations:
−
The Club logo on the letterhead was not identical between the Doumbia
Contract and the Alleged Contract.
−
The fonts were different between the contracts.
−
The Alleged Contract omitted items 2.3 through 2.8, which were in the Doumbia
Contract.
−
The Player had to sign every page in order for a contract to be approved by the
Club, but the Alleged Contract was missing the signatures on each page.
−
The Alleged Contract was missing item 13.13, which was in the Doumbia
Contract.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16803
−
The Alleged Contract contained 8 main sections, whereas the Doumbia Contract
contained 7.
−
The signatures of the Club President and Club’s witness, as well as the Player’s
witness, were alleged to have been cut from the Doumbia Contract and pasted
onto the Alleged Contract. The signatures therefore did not align properly.
Furthermore, the Club’s seal was also alleged to have been cut from the Doumbia
Contract and pasted on to the Alleged Contract, resulting in a lack of clarity and
completeness compared to the seal in the Doumbia Contract.
16. The Club further proffered evidence that it had filed criminal charges in Thailand and that,
in the context of said investigation, some of the signatories whose signatures appear in the
Alleged Contract (including the Head Coach) had given official statements in support of the
forgery and falsification contentions and denying that they signed the Alleged Contract.
17. Concerning the WhatsApp conversation filed as evidence by the Player, the Club
underscored that Mr. Doumbia was neither a club official nor a club representative, and
the Club never assigned Mr. Doumbia to contact or coordinate with players to join the
team.
18. The Club also highlighted that the Player failed to produce evidence of any offer, such as
employment confirmation letters, invitation letters, conversations with the Assistant Team
Manager and/or club officials, or proposals through a club email or other channels, nor
was there evidence of the Club’s acceptance of the Alleged Contract, or any acts undertaken
to prepare for the Player’s arrival.
19. Indeed, the Club submitted evidence that it (via the Head Coach) reached out to Mr.
Doumbia in order to inquire about the apparently falsified document, informing him that
there was a claim before FIFA and that the Club would have to pursue criminal charges. In
such conversation, Mr. Doumbia replied that, in reference to the Player, he had spoken to
the Player and he said the Player “Will cancel this on fifa” and that “The club have no problem
be cause they dont give a contract for those 2 players so” (quoted verbatim).
20. The Respondent’s requests for relief were the following:
“As these employment contracts are forged or were created without following the proper
procedures, no obligations arise (cf. art. 2 par. 2 and art. 13 of the FIFA RSTP). Therefore, the
club bears no responsibility for Mr. Christ Merveilles Kouvouama’s claims and requests the FIFA
DRC to dismiss Mr. Christ Merveilles Kouvouama’s claims.
Since the lawsuit in this case lacks clear evidence to claim damages and compensation for
breach of contract, the club has suffered damage to its reputation and lost attorney fees in this
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16803
lawsuit. The club therefore requests the plaintiff to pay attorney fees of 200,000 Baht to the
club.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
21. In his replica, the Player reiterated the validity of the Alleged Contract, highlighting the
signatures of the Club president and coach as well as the club seal, and discrediting the
comparison with the Doumbia contract as lacking any basis and consisting of speculation.
22. The Player further averred that he had provided clear evidence that the Alleged Contract
had been transmitted via Mr. Doumbia and the intermediary, a person identified as Mr.
Wanta, in line with the Club’s standard practices. In this sense, the Player provided
screenshots of a messaging app conversation where Mr. Doumbia, the Player, and Mr.
Wanta were in a video call. The Player sustained that the presence of those three
individuals together confirmed the Club’s involvement and knowledge of the negotiations
and the Player’s relationship with the team.
23. The Player also pointed out that the conversations submitted as evidence by the Club
provided undeniable proof of ongoing communication regarding matters tied to the Club’s
obligations under the Alleged Contract (i.e., clarification about the status of Mr. Doumbia’s
travel or visa-related paperwork), a mention of a person called Vivien – another player
involved in a case against the Club -, highlighting that multiple players were experiencing
administrative delays with the Club.
24. The Player further contended that the Club has not proven its forgery allegations, and that
the Club had attempted to pressure the Player into withdrawing his case and pressured
Mr. Doumbia and other intermediaries to pressure the Player.
25. In light of the above, the Player requested that “FIFA:
1. Confirm the validity of the player’s contract,
2. Order the club to pay the outstanding amounts,
3. Award compensation for damages, and
4. Impose appropriate sporting sanctions.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
26. In its duplica, the Club once again denied ever discussing, agreeing or offering any
proposals or contracts to the Player, and reiterated its observations regarding the Alleged
Contract being forged.
27. The Club also denied that the messages enclosed as evidence in the Player’s Replica
indicated anything with respect to the Club having engaged the Player in any way. The Club
explained that the image was a conversation between Mr. Doumbia and Mr. Wanta, who is
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16803
an agent who arranges for foreign athletes to be presented to Thai clubs. However, the
Club denied ever speaking to the Player and underscored that there was only evidence of
the Player speaking to Mr. Doumbia.
28. The Club further confirmed that it never initiated any procedure to register the Player
before the Football Association of Thailand or obtain a visa for him.
29. In addition, the Club provided evidence to sustain that Mr. Wanta was not involved in the
creation of the Alleged Contract and was never aware of any contract with the Player.
e. Request for Original Documentation
30. Upon the closure of the submissions phase, the FIFA general secretariat requested the
Player submit the original version of the Alleged Contract via courier. The Player submitted
a print-out of the Alleged Contract, reiterating that it had been provided electronically by
the intermediary to the Player.
f. Unsolicited Correspondence
31. The parties filed unsolicited correspondence on 21 November 2024, 3 December 2024, 8
January 2025 (from the Player), and 17 January 2025 (from the Club).
32. As all of the foregoing submissions were filed outside any relevant time limit, and pursuant
to art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned correspondence was
disregarded.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16803
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
33. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or 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 29 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 20 June 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.
34. 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) (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 a Congolese player and a Thai club.
35. 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
36. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
37. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16803
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
38. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this case concerns a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract.
39. However, the Chamber also acknowledged there was a threshold issue to be addressed
before considering the merits of the dispute vis-à-vis the Player’s claim for outstanding
remuneration and compensation, as the parties strongly disputed the authenticity of the
Alleged Contract.
40. The Chamber recalled that, while the Player relies inter alia on the existence of a fully
countersigned and executed document, the Club denied ever having engaged the Player in
any way, much less having signed the Alleged Contract. Indeed, the Chamber noted the
Club’s insistence that the Alleged Contract was forged (or more precisely, a fabricated
document) and submitted that the Player may have used the contract signed by and
between the Club and Mr. Doumbia to illicitly produce the Alleged Contract.
41. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to, first and foremost,
establish whether a valid and binding contract existed between the parties.
42. Hence, the Chamber considered that it was necessary to begin by recalling the most salient
allegations and evidence provided by the parties with regard to the authenticity of the
Alleged Contract:
-
The Player highlighted that the Alleged Contract bore the signatures of the Player,
the Club president, witnesses, and the Club seal. He further sustained that the
conversations with Mr. Doumbia and the photo evidence of a conversation that
occurred with Mr. Wanta confirmed that the Club was aware of and consented to
the Player’s engagement.
-
Conversely, the Club maintained that the Alleged Contract was fabricated, where
an existing contract with Mr. Doumbia was taken and modified to produce an
inauthentic contract purportedly binding the Club and the Player. In support of
the foregoing, the Club provided the Doumbia Contract to highlight the
differences between the two documents, in addition to bringing forth evidence of
a criminal investigation currently taking place in Thailand regarding the alleged
falsification of contracts. The Club also highlighted that the Player did not provide
any direct evidence of negotiations, conversations or messages exchanged with
the Club itself, and put forth evidence that Mr. Wanta was neither a club official
nor a participant in the creation of the Alleged Contract.
-
It was undisputed by the parties that the Club took no action whatsoever to
procure the Player’s ITC, visa, flights, etc.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16803
43. In addition, the Chamber considered it equally important to highlight the following
observations from the file:
-
The file contained no evidence demonstrating the origin of the Alleged Contract.
There only appeared to be a WhatsApp conversation with Mr. Doumbia where the
preview of the PDF document in such conversation appeared to show the Alleged
Contract.
-
Concerning any direct contact between the Player and the Club, there was a photo
of an alleged video call between Mr. Doumbia, Mr. Wanta, and the Player, with no
discernible date or other frame of reference. In addition, there was no proof of
emails, messages or other communications between the Club and the Player,
either before the purported conclusion of the Alleged Contract or after. In fact,
the Chamber noted that, despite the Player alleging he had followed up on
multiple occasions with the Club, these allegations remained unsubstantiated.
Moreover, despite alleging that an intermediary sent him the Alleged Contract
electronically, the Player did not furnish any such communication.
-
Enclosures 3 and 4 to the Reply, which contained a player-signed and a fully
executed version of the Doumbia Contract, respectively, indeed appeared to
contain wet signatures from all signatories, and the club seal appeared to have
been affixed physically.
Thus, the Chamber opined that it would tend to corroborate the Club’s
explanations regarding its procedures for signing contracts: a blank contract is
sent to the player in question for signature, and it is then returned to the Club for
its physical signature and seal.
-
The Alleged Contract provided as Enclosure 3 to the Claim (and the copy
submitted to the FIFA general secretariat via courier) indeed contained signatures
from the Club president and witnesses that were of low quality/pixelated, thus
suggesting that they were not wet signatures but were placed there electronically.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16803
-
There were messages on file from Mr. Doumbia to the Head Coach where he inter
alia said that he had only shown the Player his own contract, and that the Club
did not “give a contract” to the Player.
44. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber also recalled art. 13 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules, according to which the Chamber has full discretion to as to the weight it affords to
evidence proffered by the parties.
45. Moreover, the Chamber recalled its well-established jurisprudence holding that, as a
general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal
law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or documents, and such affairs fall into
the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. In order to be able to solve
such disputes in a satisfactory and timely manner, without the need to wait for the initiation
and conclusion of a potential criminal investigation, the Football Tribunal adopts a practical
procedure in such cases, namely to request the party who claims the authenticity of the
disputed document to provide its original version via courier. If, from a layman’s
perspective, the document appears to be authentic and in line with the additional
documentation on file, such document is considered as authentic for the purposes of
solving the dispute at hand.
46. In this sense, and considering the very particular set of circumstances outlined in the
preceding paragraphs, the Chamber considered that there were genuine doubts as to the
authenticity of the Alleged Contract, in line with the Football Tribunal’s “layman’s approach.”
Of paramount importance to the Chamber was the fact that the Player, when confronted
with allegations of falsification and evidence tending to support of such allegations, did not
provide convincing or sufficient proof to the contrary in order to sustain his position that
the Alleged Contract was indeed a validly signed agreement entered into by and between
the parties.
47. Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Chamber concluded that the
Player failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate, to the requisite degree of
certainty, that the Alleged Contract was authentic. Therefore, bearing in mind art. 13 par.
5 of the Procedural Rules, such document shall not be taken into account.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16803
48. Thus, as a consequence of the foregoing, the Chamber held that the Player’s claim must be
rejected due to a lack of contractual basis.
d. Costs
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16803
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Christ Merveilles Kouvouama, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16803
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. 15