Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17174
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Nana Poku
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Nana Poku, Ghana
Represented by Islam Hisham
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
North Gas Sport Club, Iraq
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17174
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 14 August 2024, the Ghanaian player Nana Poku (hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player)
was contacted via WhatsApp by Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez, the alleged coach of the Iraqi club
North Gas Sport Club (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) to conclude an employment
contract (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
On an unspecified date, the Player received the Contract via a WhatsApp group that
included the alleged coach of the Club, Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez.
3.
On an unspecified date, the Player sent via WhatsApp to the alleged coach Mr. Alfredo
Gonzalez, a signed copy of the Contract, valid as from 15 September 2024 until the end of
the Iraqi Premier League.
4.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a
monthly salary of IQD 2,750,000 at the end of each month.
5.
In addition, article 9 of the Contract read as follows:
“[…] 2. This Contract may be terminated before its expiry by mutual agreement.
3. This Contract may be terminated by either party, without consequences for the terminating
party, where there exists just cause at the time of the contract termination.
4. If the Club terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Club shall pay to the Player
compensation equal to the total amount of: 3750000 Iraqi Dinars
5. If the Player terminates the Contract without having just cause, the Player shall pay to the
Club compensation equal to the total amount of: 30,000,000 thirty million Iraqi dinars
6. The Parties expressly agree that the compensation amounts stipulated under the provisions
of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article X above, are fair and respect the principles of parity and
reciprocity of the Parties in light of the overall circumstances related the Contract’s conclusion
and execution. […]”
6.
On an unspecified date, the Player asked the alleged coach of the Club, Mr. Alfredo
Gonzalez, via WhatsApp about the process for his visa in Iraq.
7.
On an unspecified date, the alleged coach of the Club, Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez, answered the
Player via WhatsApp that all documents for his visa would be sent tomorrow and that it is
a procedure of the Club with the government of Iraq.
8.
On 3 September 2024, the Player asked the alleged coach of the Club, Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez,
via WhatsApp about his expected departure to Iraq.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17174
9.
On 4 September 2024, the Club announced on its official social media account the hire of
Mr. Mahmoud Majeed as its coach for the season 2024-2205.
10. On 8 September 2024, the alleged previous coach of the Club, Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez,
answered the Player via WhatsApp that there are problems within the Club and that the
Iraqi Football Association has changed the number of foreigners available to be registered
in the season 2024-2025. In addition, the alleged coach of the Club, Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez,
apologized to the Player as he must find another team.
11. On an unspecified date, the new coach of the Club, Mr. Mahmoud Majeed, apologized to
the Player via WhatsApp as he must find himself a new club and informed him that he
recommended him to some coaches of other clubs.
12. On 1 October 2024, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the Respondent:
“Dear Chairman of North Gas Sport Club,
I hope this message finds you well.
I am writing to follow up on my employment contract dated 15 September 2024. "Attached
herein" I would like to request your decision regarding my retention as a player on the team.
I kindly ask that you provide your response within 72 hours. Please note that failure to respond
within this timeframe will trigger Article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (FIFA-RSTP), which may result in termination of my contract without just cause. This
action would place liability on your club for all associated legal responsibilities and
consequences.
If I do not receive a response, I will consider myself released from any employment relationship
with your club. I will then be free to sign with other clubs without facing any sporting sanctions
or financial compensation obligations from your club. In such a case, your club would be
required to compensate me in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA-RSTP.
I would like to emphasize that I am open to negotiations to resolve this matter amicably,
avoiding any claims before the FIFA Football Tribunal.”
13. On the same day, i.e. 1 October 2024, the Respondent answered the latest correspondence
of the Claimant, claiming to be unaware of the situation and denying having sent him any
employment contract.
14. On 25 October 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default as follows:
“[…] we would like to inform you that our client informed us that the Club did not register him
in the list of the team within the season 2024/2025, although there is a binding employment
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17174
contract signed between both parties on 15 September 2024. However, after signing the contract
from the player, and after the Club received it by its official email; the Club decided to unilaterally
terminate it without just cause suddenly without any prior agreement with our client which
cause a huge damage to him.
Consequently, and in good faith, our client sent an official email on 01 October 2024 requesting
the Club to implement its contractual obligations made by the binding employment contract,
but no one answer from your side, which means clearly that the Club breached the contract by
terminating it with our client without just cause and during the protect period.
In accordance with the legal principles of “Pacta Sunt Sevranda [sic]” and “bona fide”, it is crystal
clear that out client has fulfilled all his contractual obligations after signing the Employment
contract. However, the club failed to do so, and thus, the club will be held liable to pay our client
with outstanding salary of September which equal an amount of Dinnar Iraqi 3,750,000-/ which
equivalent to an amount of USD "3,000-/ "three thousand dollars" in addition to compensate
him for the residual period of the contract according to article 17 of FIFA-RSTP which equal an
amount of Dinnar Iraqi 26,250,000-/ which equivalent to an amount of USD 20,000-/ "twenty
thousand dollars" for terminating the contract without just cause during the protected period
Pursuant to Article 12bis of FIFA-RSTP and CAS jurisprudence, no club is allowed to delay its
financial obligations without a valid legal basis, therefore failure to pay salaries for more than
30 days without any valid reason might impose a sporting sanction against the Club.
Therefore, we are granting you ten (10) days as a final deadline based on article 12bis to resolve
all violations committed towards the Player amicably and pay the above-mentioned amounts
plus the compensation as we have explained above. In case of failure to do so, the Player has
no other option except to resort to FIFA Football Tribunal (“DRC”), requesting the Club to pay him
his compensation based on article17 of FIFA-RSTP, to be increased by 5% interest p.a as per the
date on which the respective amounts should have been paid. […]”
15. On 31 October 2024, the Respondent answered the default notice of the Claimant as
follows:
“[…] 1-The player (Nana poku) sent an email to our club on 1/10/2024 claiming that he had an
employment contract submitted to him by our club. We responded to him at that time that the
club had not sent him any official contract via the club's official email.
2- On 2/10/2024, the player sent a copy of an employment contract signed by him only, claiming
that it was the contract sent to him by us, knowing that it did not contain the stamp, signature,
and ratification of the club president. We explained to him for the second time that our club
management had not sent any employment contract to him.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17174
3- You indicated in your notice that the club did not respond to the player's email, but on the
contrary, all of his emails sent to us were answered, and we indicated to him that we had not
sent him any employment contract, and this is recorded in our email.
4- The contract sent by the player to us is a unified contract for all Iraqi clubs that are active in
the Stars League and the Iraqi Premier League. It is easy to obtain the contract, and we have
evidence that the contract presented by the player and dated 15/9/2024 was not issued by our
club and we keep the evidence of the invalidity of the contract until then.”
16. The Player confirmed to the FIFA general secretariat that he remained unemployed until
today.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 21 November 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
18. In his claim, the Player argued that he had entered into a valid and binding employment
contract with the Club and that the latter had breached it by failing to comply with its
contractual obligations. In this regard, the Player argued that the Club had not provided
him with a visa, didn’t register him with the Iraqi Football Association and didn’t fulfil its
financial obligations.
19. The Claimant’s requests for relief, as amended, were the following:
“1) To accept this claim against the Respondent.
2) To consider the Respondent liable for the breach without just cause of the Employment
Contract under Article 14 of FIFA-RSTP.
3) To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant an amount of USD 3000 “Three thousand
US Dollars” as the outstanding salary according to articles 12bis of FIFA-RSTP plus 5% interest.
4) To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for the residual value of the
Contract according to Article 17 Para.1 (i) of FIFA RSTP an amount of 26,250,000 Dinar Iraqi,
which is equivalent an amount of USD 20,000-/ “twenty thousand dollars” as the total value of
the contract plus 5% interest.
5) To condemn the Respondent to pay the claimant an additional head of compensation under
the specificity of sport as provided for under Article 17. Para 1 of FIFA-RSTP in an amount of USD
17,122/-“Seventeen thousand, one hundred twenty-two” plus 5% interest.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17174
6) To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum over
entire amounts requested from the due date of each payment until the date of the effective
payment.
7) To ban the Respondent from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally,
for two registration periods under Article 17 para 4 and under Article 12bis para 4/d of the FIFA
RSTP
8) To fix a sum of USD (5,000-/) “five thousand dollars”, to be paid by the Respondent to the
Claimant, to help the payment of its legal fees and costs.
9) As a consequence of the above, to condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and costs of
the present proceedings, if any.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
20. In its reply, the Club argued that no valid and binding employment contract was concluded
with the Player and that all WhatsApp correspondence submitted by the Player were with
a person who has no connection with the Club.
21. Regarding the Contract submitted by the Player, the Club pointed out that it is the template
used for all Iraqi clubs in the season 2023-2024 and that the employment contract for the
season 2024-2025 has undergone some changes by the Iraqi Football Association. In
particular, the Club argued that:
•
the Contract submitted by the Player does not contain a number at the top right
side of its first page;
•
its employment contracts include the start and end date, contrary to the Contract
submitted by the Player; and that
•
the Contract submitted by the Player contains the previous logo of the Club, which
has been changed on 1 September 2024.
22. Considering the foregoing, the Respondent requested to reject the claim and argued that
the Contract on file is forged. In addition, the Respondent lodged a counterclaim against
the Claimant, i.e. to impose a penalty on the Claimant and that it is obligated to pay USD
5,000 based on the principle of liability for damages and tarnishing its reputation.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17174
c. Replica of the Claimant
23. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Claimant argued that it is in fact the Respondent who
sent him the Contract and that it perfectly matches the evidence provided by the
Respondent regarding its employment contracts with its players, notably regarding the
logo and the identification of the parties. In this regard, the Claimant pointed out that the
Contract contains the previous logo of the Respondent, as it was signed prior to 1
September 2024 and that the position of the Respondent is contradicting as it used the
previous logo’s seal on its response to the present matter and on the evidence filed.
24. In addition, the Claimant submitted additional evidence, namely WhatsApp conversations
with the coach of the Club, to support his position that he had entered into a valid and
binding employment contract with the Club and that the latter had breached it by failing to
comply with its contractual obligations.
25. Considering the foregoing, the Claimant requested to reject the counterclaim and
reiterated his initial requests for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
26. In its duplica, the Club reiterated its initial position and argued that although it has changed
its logo on 1 September 2024, it still uses its previous logo’s seal for its correspondence,
however the Club mentioned that it no longer uses this logo for the employment contracts
with its players.
27. In support of its position, the Club relied on the following articles 7-8 of the Circular of the
Iraqi Football Association for the season 2024-2025:
“7 - Unified contract formula
- A unified formula for player contracts will be adopted for the 2024-2025 season,
and it will be sent to all clubs as soon as possible.
- These contracts will be valid for the 2024-2025 season, and any contract with a
formula different from the unified contract sent by the Iraqi Football Association
will be rejected.
- Clubs have the right to create their own internal regulations to regulate their
relationship with players.
8 - Approval of contracts:
- It is not permitted to sign any contract with any player without obtaining official
approval from the Federation, in order to adhere to the financial standards
approved for the 2024-2025 season, and stipulated in the licensing regulations.
- The club must not exceed its budget allocated for the 2024-2025 season in its
contracts.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17174
e. Information provided by the Iraqi Football Association
28. On 11 April 2025, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Iraqi Football Association to
confirm the Player’s historic of transfers within the Iraqi Football Association (i.e. the
Player’s official passport) and the period(s) of registration of said player with the club,
together with a copy of all the employment contract(s), if any, executed between said
parties.
29. On 14 April 2025, the Iraqi Football Association answered the FIFA General Secretariat as
follows:
“Dear FIFA,
Greetings from the Iraqi Football Association (IFA).
With reference to your email dated 11 April 2025, we would like to inform you that the player
Nana Poku has not been registered with any club affiliated to the IFA. We confirm that there are
no records of his registration, no history of transfers, and no registration period associated with
the player in our system.
Furthermore, we confirm that the IFA has never submitted a request for the player's
International Transfer Certificate (ITC) via the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS).
Thank you for your understanding. […]”
f. Original document to be provided via courier
30. In light of the Club’s allegations of forgery concerning the Contract, the FIFA general
secretariat requested the Player to provide the original document of the alleged
employment contract.
31. The FIFA general secretariat received the evidence requested from the Player.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 21 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 15 May 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17174
Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
33. 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 Ghanaian player and a Iraqi club.
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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
37. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of an employment relationship.
38. In particular, the Chamber took note that, according to the Claimant, he had entered into
a valid and binding employment contract with the Respondent and that the latter had
breached it by failing to comply with its contractual obligations. Therefore, it is the position
of the Claimant that he is entitled to compensation for the breach of the Contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17174
39. In addition, the Chamber took note that the Respondent disputed the existence of a valid
and binding employment relationship with the Player and argued that the Contract
submitted by the Player is forged.
40. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to first determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether they have concluded a valid and binding
employment contract, and, if in the affirmative, evaluate the merits of the Player’s claim.
41. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber started by recalling its well-established jurisprudence
which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and
binding, apart from the consent of both the employer and the employee (usually
manifested by the signature to the relevant agreement), it should contain the essentialia
negotii of an employment contract, such as the name of the parties to the contract and
their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable by
the employer to the employee.
42. In the present matter, the Chamber observed that the Contract indeed reflected the name
of the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship
and the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee. However, the Chamber
pointed out that the Contract on file did not bear the signature of the Club.
43. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the signature of a contract by both parties is an
important element in order to establish an employment relationship, essentially because
this is the easiest way to demonstrate mutual consent. However, having an unsigned
specimen of an employment contract does not automatically mean there is no
employment relationship between the parties, because this shall be established on a caseby-case basis and considering the entirety of the facts of the case and the elements at the
disposal of the deciding authority.
44. Lastly, the Chamber recalled the content of 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. With this in mind, the Chamber deemed that it was up to the Claimant to
prove that the employment relationship, on the basis of which he claimed compensation
for breach of the Contract from the Respondent, indeed existed.
45. In this framework, the Chamber considered the above particularly important, taking into
account that the Respondent disputed the authenticity of the Contract and that FIFA’s
deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as
allegations of falsified signatures of documents. In this regard, the Chamber stated that
such affairs fall into jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority.
46. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber deemed appropriate to recall that 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, it adopts a practical
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17174
procedure in such cases, namely, to request the original version of the disputed document
via regular mail. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, if for a layman the document
appears to be authentic and in line with the further documentation on file, such document
is considered as authentic for the purposes of solving the dispute at hand.
47. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the documentation brought forward
by the parties and acknowledged receipt of the document provided by the Player via
courier, namely the alleged original employment contract with the Club. In this regard, the
Chamber proceeded to assess whether the disputed document could in fact be taken into
consideration in the context of the present case.
48. After thoroughly analysing the documentation provided by the Player via courier, the
Chamber noted that the Contract was a printed copy, not the original document. However,
based on the Player’s allegations, the Chamber understood that the Contract had allegedly
been sent via WhatsApp by the Club and signed electronically by the Player, rather than in
person. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Contract lacked the Club’s signature and
therefore needed to ascertain the origin of the document in question in order to assess
whether the Club’s consent to the Contract could be confirmed by other means.
49. With the above in mind and considering the factual framework involving the negotiations
between the parties prior to the Claimant signing the Contract, the Chamber considered
that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a valid and binding
employment relationship with the Respondent. In this regard, the Chamber took note of
the facts below:
•
There is no proof on file that the person with whom the Player corresponded via
WhatsApp to conclude an employment relationship and from whom he received
the Contract, namely Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez, was in fact the Club’s coach or a duly
authorised representative at the time.
•
From the communications on file, it appears that Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez was an
intermediary communicating with the Player and not the Club’s coach. In fact,
there is no evidence on file to be able to determine whether this person had a
position within the Club at the time of the negotiations or was otherwise
empowered to bind the Club to an employment contract with the Player. In this
regard, the Chamber also considered the Player’s evidence, in which the alleged
coach of the Club, Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez, stated that he “will talk to the coach”.
•
The Player also provided evidence which confirms the hiring of Mr. Hussain Talal
on 4 August 2024 as the Club’s coach, while the Player argued that the Club’s
coach, Mr. Alfredo Gonzalez, contacted him on 14 August 2024 to conclude an
employment contract, thus constituting strong indication that Mr. Gonzalez was
not the coach of the Club at the time of signature of the Contract.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17174
•
As to the communications with the new coach of the Club, it is not clear when
they happened as no dates were provided, and in which context, therefore, the
Chamber considered they did not corroborate the existence of the Contract.
•
Based on the information on the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and the
confirmation from the Iraqi Football Association, the Player was never registered
with the Club.
50. Thus, on account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that no valid and
binding employment contract had been concluded between the parties and therefore the
Claimant’s claim had no legal basis. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the claim
shall be rejected.
51. Lastly, the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent as it is
not supported with the necessary documentary evidence in line with art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules.
d. Costs
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17174
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Nana Poku, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, North Gas Sport Club, is rejected.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17174
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