Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18160
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Axel Ngantsie
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Axel Ngantsie, France
Represented by Daniel Rey
RESPONDENT:
Rosmarino, Italy
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18160
I. Facts of the case
1.
2.
The parties to the present case are :
-
the French player Axel Ngantsie (hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player) and
-
the Italian club Rosmarino (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club).
On 25 May 2024, the Player allegedly received from the Respondent the following proposal
(hereinafter: the Proposal):
“ECONOMIC AGREEMENT PROPOSAL (REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES)
NAME: AXEL
SURNAME : NGANTSIE
DATE OF BIRTH: 17/7/2000
PLACE OF BIRTH: FRANCE
POSITION: Central Back l Right Back
CITIZENSHIP: FRANCE
TOTAL AGREEMENT: 7,200 €
MONTHLY PAYMENTS FOR 8 MONTHS: 900 €
ACCOMMODATION: YES
AGREEMENT DURATION:
Start of Preparation AUGUST 2024
End of Championship APRIL 2025 […]”
3.
The Proposal was drafted in the Club’s letterhead, and it is signed and stamped by the Club.
While it does not contain any designated space for the Player to countersign it, his signature
is found therein.
4.
On an unspecified date, the alleged Sporting Director of the Club sent the following
message to the Player via WhatsApp:
« Axel J’ai parlé au staff, il y a peu de chance que tu puisses commencer cette année Monsieur
Tomasi m’a appelé et m’a dit de te dire ça. Ces jours-là, nous vous donnerons l’argent pour le
billet, parlerons à votre agent Molino et verrons si vous pouvez trouver une autre équipe.
[…]
car je fais pression pour te garder depuis une semaine, mais le coach m’a dit que tu auras peu
d’espace compte tenu des deux défenseurs centraux actuels. Il vaut donc mieux garder un junior
de 2006 qui n’implique pas de salaire, de chambre et de pension. [sic] dépenses.
mieux vaut maintenant que plus tard, si vous n’avez pas de place et que vous êtes inscrit, nous
ne pourrons pas vous libérer. »
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18160
Freely translated into English:
“Axel, I spoke to the staff. There is little chance that you will be able to start this year. Mr. Tomasi
called me and told me to tell you that. In the next few days, we will give you the money for the
ticket, we will talk to your agent Molino and see if you can find another team.
[…]
because I've been pushing to keep you here for a week, but the coach tells me that you won't
have much space given the two current central defenders. So, it's better to keep a 2006 junior
who doesn't involve a salary, room and expenses.
Better now than later, if you don't have a place and you're registered, we won't be able to free
you up.”
5.
On 19 January 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default as follows:
“Dear Mr President
I inform you that I represent your former player Axel Ngantsie in the dispute relating to unpaid
salaries after termination of contract without just cause.
Thus, I refer to the contract of your aforementioned player with your club signed on 25.05.2024.
This is why, I ask you to pay by February 5th, 2025 (15 days) the sum of EUR 7200.- (seven
thousand and two hundred EUR) […]”
6.
The Player informed the FIFA general secretariat that he remained unemployed since the
alleged termination of the alleged employment contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 9 February 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
8.
The Claimant noted that he concluded an employment contract with the Respondent from
1 August 2024 until 30 April 2025 and that he was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 900.
In this regard, the Player referred to a Facebook publication of the Club drafted in Italian in
which it allegedly welcomed him.
9.
As to the termination of the alleged employment contract, the Claimant argued that the
Respondent terminated it unilaterally and without just cause with its WhatsApp
correspondence dated 17 August 2024.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18160
10. Considering the foregoing, the Claimant requested EUR 7,200 as compensation for the
early termination of the alleged employment relationship without just cause.
b. Reply of the Respondent
11. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim of the Claimant.
c. Information provided by the Italian Football Federation (FIGC)
12. On 9 April 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat asked the FIGC to provide the Player’s record
of transfers within the member association (i.e. the Player’s official passport), as well as the
period(s) of registration of the Player with the Club together with a copy of all the
contract(s), if any, executed between said parties.
13. On 11 April 2025, the FIGC answered the FIFA General Secretariat that the Player has never
been registered with the Club.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. 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 9 February 2025 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.
15. 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 a French player and
an Italian club.
16. 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.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18160
b. Burden of proof
17. 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
18. 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
19. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim from the Player against the Club for compensation for the early termination
of the alleged employment relationship without just cause.
20. In particular, the Chamber noted that, according to the Claimant, the parties had a valid
employment contract, and the Respondent terminated the alleged employment contract
unilaterally and without just cause with its WhatsApp correspondence dated 17 August
2024.
21. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Respondent did not respond to the claim,
entailing that its decision must be made on the basis of the documentation on file, that is,
the argumentation and evidence filed by the Claimant in line with art. 14 par. 1 and 21, par.
1 of the Procedural Rules.
22. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence by the parties, whether a valid and binding employment contract was concluded
in the present matter.
23. The Chamber first recalled its well-established jurisprudence which dictates that, in order
for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature
of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an
employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the
employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18160
24. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, a party claiming a right based on an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of
proof. On this note, the Chamber considered that it was up to the Player to prove that the
employment relationship on which he claims compensation for its early termination from
the Club did in fact exist.
25. In the present matter, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber
understood that the Proposal (i) contains the proper identification of the parties; and (ii)
provides for the duration of the employment relationship and the payable remuneration
to the Player.
26. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that the Proposal did not include a designated space
for the Player to insert his signature. In this respect, the Chamber was of the opinion that
the Proposal was not meant to be a bilateral document (i.e. an employment contract), but
solely a unilateral offer to the Player.
27. Furthermore, the Chamber found it noteworthy that the Player did not provide any
evidence capable of demonstrating that any other document was ever concluded between
the parties with a view to confirm that the conditions described in the Proposal were indeed
validated. In fact, the Chamber observed that the Player did not provide any evidence
demonstrating that he ever accepted the Proposal. While the Chamber noted that the
Proposal bears the Player’s signature, there is no evidence indicating when or how it was
signed, nor that the acceptance of the Proposal was ever communicated to the
Respondent.
28. In light of the abovementioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that the essential
elements mentioned by its jurisprudence were not fully included in the Proposal and
therefore the employment offer was not able to trigger the consequences of a labour
relationship between the parties.
29. With the above in mind, the Chamber decided that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient
evidence to establish a valid and binding employment relationship with the Respondent.
30. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also took into consideration the confirmation
from the FIGC that the Player has never been registered with the Club, as well as the
behavior of the parties, which appears to confirm that neither of them can be held
responsible for the non-continuation of the alleged contractual relationship as neither of
them showed interest therein. In fact, the Chamber noted that the evidence on file
indicates that there was no communication between the parties between the alleged
sending of the Proposal from the Club on 25 May 2024 and the Player’s default notice dated
19 January 2025.
31. Consequently, the Chamber entirely rejected the Player’s claim.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18160
d. Costs
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18160
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Axel Ngantsie, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18160
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. 10