Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18245
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Khalifa Ababacar Sow
BY:
Sihon GAUCI (Malta)
CLAIMANT:
Khalifa Ababacar Sow, Senegal
Represented by Aziz Guerfali
RESPONDENT:
Grupo Desportivo Sagrada Esperança, Angola
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18245
I. Facts of the case
1.
According to the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 29
January 2025 the Senegalese player Khalifa Ababacar Sow (hereinafter, the Player or the
Claimant), and the Angolan club Grupo Desportivo Sagrada Esperança (hereinafter, the Club
or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as
from 1 February 2025 until 31 May 2026.
2.
In accordance with Clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player
(hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) a monthly remuneration of USD 3,000.
3.
On 12 February 2025, the Player put the Club in default, requesting a flight ticket to travel
to Angola in order to join the Club and to be registered with the relevant authorities. The
Player granted the Club a deadline of 24 hours to comply with these requests.
4.
On 13 February 2025, the Player sent a second default notice to the Club, reiterating his
previous requests. The Player granted the Club an additional deadline of 24 hours to
register him and to send a flight ticket to join the Club.
5.
Also on 13 February 2025, the Club replied to the Player’s default notice informing the latter
that the Club was only waiting for the entry visa, and that the relevant application had
already been submitted.
6.
On 14 February 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract.
7.
On 20 February 2025, the “Ministério do Interior Serviço de Migração e Estrangeiros” of Angola
approved a visa permit for the Player.
8.
On an unspecified date, the Club sent the Player a flight ticket to Angola.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18245
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 15 February 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
10. According to the Player, the Club failed to register the Contract and did not provide him
with a flight ticket in order to join the Club in Angola, thereby preventing the execution of
the Contract.
11. Moreover, the Player contended that the Club failed to take any concrete action despite his
formal notices. Accordingly, the Player claimed that he had the right to unilaterally
terminate the Contract in light of the Club’s failure to meet its essential obligations.
12. The Player requested the following relief:
“In light of the above, we respectfully request the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
1. Recognize the termination of the contract for just cause, with immediate effect, in
accordance with FIFA regulations.
2. Order the club to pay the player the outstanding salaries of 45,000 USD for the remaining
contractual period”.
b. Position of the Respondent
13. Despite being invited to do so, the Club failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18245
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 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 Single Judge 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 January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), she is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Senegalese player
and an Angolan club.
16. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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
17. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
18. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18245
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it
concerned a claim by a player against a club for breach of contract and its consequences.
20. The Single Judge noted that, according to the Player, he had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract on 14 February 2025 based on the Club’s failure to register the
Contract with the relevant authorities and to provide him with a flight ticket to Angola. In
this regard, the Player contended that the Club failed to meet its essential obligations
despite his requests.
21. The Single Judge also noted that the claim remained uncontested by the Club, and
therefore underscored that the decision will be made based on the arguments and
evidence on file (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
22. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to analyse whether, as
claimed by the Player, he had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract and, in
such a case, the consequences that follow.
23. The Single Judge started her analysis by referring to art. 14 par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which:
“A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either
payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause. In
general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer reasonably
and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship”.
24. The Single Judge also recalled that, in accordance with the longstanding and wellestablished jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, only a breach or misconduct which is of
a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there
are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to
assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, and vice versa, such measures
must be taken before terminating an employment contract. The Single Judge underscored
that a premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio
measure.
25. With the above in mind, the Single Judge went on to analyse the Player’s arguments and
the evidence submitted to the file, and noted the following:
o On 29 January 2025, the Parties signed the Contract, which would be valid as from 1
February 2025 until 31 May 2026.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18245
o On 12 February 2025, the Player sent an email to the Club requesting the latter to
register the Contract with the relevant authorities and to provide him with a flight ticket
to Angola. In his communication, the Player granted the Club a deadline of 24 hours to
proceed as requested.
o On 13 February 2025, the Player reiterated his previous request, granting the Club an
additional 24-hours deadline to register the Contract with the relevant authorities and
to provide him with a flight ticket.
o Also on 13 February 2025, the Club replied to the aforementioned default notice,
informing the Player (i) that it was only waiting for the approval of his entry visa and (ii)
that it had already requested such approval to the relevant authorities.
o On 14 February 2025, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract, denouncing that
the Club had failed to take any action to fulfil its contractual obligations.
o On 20 February 2025, the relevant authorities approved the Player’s visa application
form.
o Following the aforementioned approval, on an unspecified date, the Club sent the
Player a flight ticket to Angola.
26. After having carefully analysed the above timeline of events and the arguments brought
forward by the Player, the Single Judge considered that the Player’s unilateral termination
of the Contract was rather abrupt.
27. In particular, the Single Judge underscored that the Player did not grant the Club a
reasonable period of time to fulfil its contractual obligations. Furthermore, the Player
himself provided evidence which proved that the Club had informed him immediately
about the situation with the entry permit, and that the relevant application had already
been submitted.
28. The Single Judge therefore dismissed the Player’s argument that the Club failed to take any
concrete action, as the Player himself proved that the Club did apply for his visa and
informed him accordingly.
29. Moreover, the evidence submitted by the Player also established that, as soon as the Club
received approval for the visa, it sent it to the Player along with a flight ticket to travel to
Angola.
30. In light of the foregoing, and under the circumstances of the present case, as detailed ut
supra, the Single Judge determined that Player’s unilateral termination departed from the
ultima ratio principle.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18245
31. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that the Player did not have a just cause to terminate
the Contract, and therefore rejected his claim breach of contract.
32. Nonetheless, the Single Judge underscored that the foregoing conclusion is without
prejudice to the Player’s entitlement to his remuneration from the date of signature of the
Contract until its unilateral termination, i.e., from 1 February to until 14 February 2025.
33. In this regard, the Single Judge underlined that the Club bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the payment of the Player’s remuneration for the aforementioned
period in accordance with the Contract.
34. Nonetheless, and considering that the claim remained uncontested by the Club, the Single
Judge determined that the Club did not submit any evidence of compliance with the
aforementioned payment.
35. In view of the foregoing, and bearing in mind the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay the Player the outstanding amounts
deriving from the Contract during the period 1 February to 14 February 2025,
i.e., USD 1,400 calculated pro rata as follows:
(USD 3,000 x 14) / 30
36. Lastly, the Single Judge took into consideration the fact that the Player requested no
interest, so as not to contravene the principle of ne ultra petita, the Single Judge did not
award any interest on the aforementioned amount.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
38. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence 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.
39. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18245
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
40. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
41. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
42. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the Parties.
43. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
44. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18245
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Khalifa Ababacar Sow, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Grupo Desportivo Sagrada Esperança, must pay to the Claimant the
following amount(s):
USD 1,400 as outstanding remuneration.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18245
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