Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19025
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Dogbole
Franck Niangbo
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Dogbole Franck Niangbo, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Tayba Jawad Rodriguez
RESPONDENT:
Tumosan Konyaspor, Türkiye
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19025
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 February 2024, the Ivorian player Dogbole Franck Niangbo (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant) and the Turkish club Tumosan Konyaspor (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid from the
signing date until 30 June 2024.
2.
Pursuant to clause 3 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player the following
remuneration:
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 20,000 by 28 February 2024;
EUR 20,000 by 1 April 2024;
EUR 20,000 by 30 April 2024;
EUR 15,000 by 31 May 2024;
EUR 5,000 by 1 July 2024.
3.
Clause 1 of the special provisions of the Contract provided that any payments would be net
of Turkish taxes.
4.
On 30 June 2024, the Contract expired.
5.
On 25 July 2024, the Player signed a letter requesting that the Club pay the remaining
balance of the Contract to Mr Nikica Polic (hereinafter: Mr Polic). This letter provided the
following, quoted verbatim:
“Dear Officers of Konyaspor Club,
As of today, Konyaspor owes me a total amount of €61.000,00 (sixty one thousand Euro)
regarding to the employment contract started from 8 February 2024, ended on 30 June
2024.
Please make the payment of the remaining balance to Mr. Nikica Polic (passport number:
B3546128). I hereby declare that I am taking all the responsibility and this payment will
be done to Mr. Nikica Polic because of my own request.
I also would like to inform you that I discharge Konyaspor whenever Mr. Polic receives
the abovementioned amount.
Thanks.
Dogbole Franck Anderson Niangbo”
6.
It must be noted that the Player does not dispute that he signed this document.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19025
7.
On 26 July 2024, the Player allegedly issued the following statement, quoted verbatim:
“Dear Sirs,
I refer to the employment contract signed between myself and your club on 08.02.2024,
which expired on 30.06.2024.
I, as of today, have oustanding remuneration arising from the referred contract, in the
total amount of 61.000.-Euro.
Please note that I have transferred my receivables from Konyaspor Spor Kulubu, in the
amount of 61.000.-Euro to Mr. Nikica Polic (passport number: B3546128).
In light of the transfer of my receivables to Mr. Nikica Polic, I hereby request from
Konyaspor Spor Kulubu to pay the referred amount to Mr. Nikica Polic and hereby
confirm that Konyaspor Spor Kulubu will be deemed to have discharge its obligation
towards me to deliver the payment of the referred amount and I will be deemed to have
released Konyaspor Spor Kulubu from any and all obligations with the succesful payment
of the referred amount to Mr. Nikica Polic.
Thank you for taking note of the above,
Kind regards”
8.
However, the Player denied signing this document, arguing that it was forged.
9.
On 10 September 2024, the Club issued a receipt for an amount of EUR 61,000, which was
signed by Mr Polic as follows (in a handwritten note):
“I received by hand on behalf of the Dogbole Franck Anderson Niangbo.
Polic Nikica”
10. On 9 April 2025, the Player sent the Club a default notice, demanding payment of the last
four instalments of the Contract within 10 days.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19025
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 24 April 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
12. In his claim, the Player explained that he had provided services throughout the duration of
the Contract, but the Club had failed to make the payments due to him. Specifically, only
the first instalment was delivered, whereas the final four remained outstanding.
13. The Player requested the following relief:
“1. That this claim is accepted.
2. That the club is condemned to pay the amount 60,000.-EUR as outstanding debt.
3. That an interest rate of 5% p.a. applies on said principal since each instalment became
due (i.e. on 20,000.-Eur since 1 April 2024, on 20,000.-Eur since 30 April 2024, on 15,000.Eur 31 May and on 5,000.-Eur since 1 July 2024) and until effective date of payment.
4. That the corresponding sporting sanctions are imposed on the Club according to Art.
12.bis 4.
5.That the club is ordered to pay the Player an additional amount of at least 5,000.EUROS as contribution to the legal costs assumed by him derived from these
proceedings”.
b. Reply of the Club
14. On 22 May 2025, the Club submitted its reply to the claim.
15. The Club provided evidence that it paid the Player the following (i) EUR 10,000 on 4 March
2024; and (ii) EUR 10,000 on 8 April 2024.
16. Furthermore, the Club argued that the Player had authorized a third party (Mr Polic) to
receive the money on his behalf. The Club provided copies of the statements dated 25 and
26 July 2024, along with invoices, and alleged that it handed over a cheque (Serial No. D31577962) to Mr Polic on 10 September 2024. Mr Polic also signed a receipt.
17. Consequently, the Club claimed that it no longer had any receivables towards the Player.
The Club therefore requested that the claim be rejected.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19025
c. Replica of the Player
18. On 27 May 2025, the Player submitted his replica.
19. The Player stated that he had left the country after the Contract had expired and that he
had no other means to receive his monies other than by signing the letter on 25 July 2024,
authorizing Mr Polic to receive his remuneration on his behalf.
20. The Player argued that the Club had explained that it would be impossible to pay him by
bank transfer and that payment could only be made via cheque. He also alleged that Mr
Polic worked as an intermediary for the Club and that there was no proof that he had ever
received the payment.
21. Next, the Player denied signing the statement dated 26 July 2024, claiming that it had been
forged by the Club.
22. Similarly, the Player stressed that he had no legal representation at the time, had not validly
assigned the credit to a third party and that it had not been uploaded to the FIFA Transfer
Matching System (TMS). He also insisted that he had never received any payment from the
Club or Mr Polic, and he submitted WhatsApp conversations to support his position.
23. Finally, the Player reiterated his request for relief as set out in the statement of claim.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
24. On 30 May 2025, the Club submitted its duplica, reiterating its position as set out in its
response to the claim.
25. The Club pointed out that the Player had signed the 25 July 2024 letter of his own free will
and could not claim to be unaware of its contents. The Club also claimed that the lack of
registration in TMS did not affect the validity of the statement signed by the Player.
26. Similarly, the Club stated that the Player had not proven that Mr Polic was a person close
to the Club. The Club also suggested that the Player should not have agreed to transfer
money to someone he did not know or trust.
27. The Club therefore reiterated its request that the claim be rejected.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19025
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. 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 24 April 2025 and submitted for decision on
24 June 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.
29. 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 an Ivorian player and a Turkish club.
30. 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
31. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
32. 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. 7
REF. FPSD-19025
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
33. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for overdue payables lodged by a player against a club.
34. The DRC observed that the parties agreed that, at the end of their employment
relationship, the Club owed the Player a total of EUR 61,000 under the Contract. However,
they dispute whether this debt was settled by the Club through an alleged payment to Mr
Polic.
35. In this respect, the Chamber found it essential that the Player admitted to signing the
document dated 25 July 2024, in which he authorized the Club to transfer his credit to Mr
Polic. Furthermore, not only did the Player fail to include any reservation of right, but he
also undertook full responsibility for his act in this document, as follows:
“Dear Officers of Konyaspor Club,
As of today, Konyaspor owes me a total amount of €61.000,00 (sixty one thousand Euro)
regarding to the employment contract started from 8 February 2024, ended on 30 June
2024.
Please make the payment of the remaining balance to Mr. Nikica Polic (passport number:
B3546128). I hereby declare that I am taking all the responsibility and this payment
will be done to Mr. Nikica Polic because of my own request.
I also would like to inform you that I discharge Konyaspor whenever Mr. Polic receives
the abovementioned amount.
Thanks.
Dogbole Franck Anderson Niangbo”
(emphasis added by the DRC)
36. The Chamber further noted that the Player claimed vulnerability when signing the
aforementioned statement, since he was no longer in the country. However, the DRC
accepted the Club’s allegation in this respect, i.e., that both clubs and players are required
to exercise reasonable diligence when conducting their business, particularly when
significant legal consequences are involved.
37. In the same vein, the DRC also agreed with the Club that the lack of registration of the
document in the TMS does not affect its validity. The Chamber also stressed that there was
no formal requirement for the Club to upload such an assignment of credit to the system.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19025
38. Although the Chamber found the Player’s account of the events credible, it concluded that
he had failed to provide any documentation to corroborate his allegations that Mr Polic
was linked to the Club in any way, and/or that any irregular manoeuvres had been
employed to circumvent obligations. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Player had been
waiting for several months to receive his salary and found no clear evidence as to why he
had rushed into assigning his credit to a third party without exploring other options.
39. Consequently, the DRC ruled that the Player had validly agreed to transfer his credit to a
third party and could not withdraw from the agreement. Furthermore, as the Club
submitted evidence suggesting that it had complied with the payment to the designated
third party – to which the Player had expressly agreed – the DRC decided to reject the
Player’s claim.
40. The Chamber then clarified that any request relating to Mr Polic would fall outside FIFA’s
jurisdiction. However, it was noted that this decision was without prejudice of the Player’s
right to seek redress against Mr Polic in an appropriate forum.
d. Costs
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19025
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Dogbole Franck Niangbo, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19025
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