Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17720
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Bubacarr Tambedou
BY:
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa)
CLAIMANT:
Bubacarr Tambedou, Gambia
Represented by Alen Šomić
RESPONDENT:
FC Dinamo Batumi, Georgia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17720
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 23 June 2024, the Gambian player Bubacarr Tambedou (hereinafter, the Player or the
Claimant) and the Georgian club FC Dinamo Batumi (hereinafter, the Club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 23
June 2024 until 31 July 2026.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 4 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the following fixed monthly remuneration:
o USD 7,500 net in Georgian Lari (GEL) from 17 June 2024 to 30 June 2025; and
o USD 8,500 net in GEL from 1 July 2025 until 31 July 2026.
3.
On 1 October 2024, the Player put the Club in default, requesting the payment of USD
19,376.76, representing his partial remuneration for June 2024, and his remuneration for
July, August and September 2024. The Player granted the Club a deadline of fifteen days to
comply with its financial obligations.
4.
On 3 December 2024, the Player again put the Club in default, requesting payment of USD
28,171.04, corresponding to the following concepts. The Player granted the Club an
additional deadline of fifteen days to comply with its financial obligations.
o USD 1,750, as seven days of June 2024;
o USD 7,500 for July, August, September, October and November 2025.
5.
On 9 December 2024, the Club replied to the Player informing that his actual debt was
lower, and that the November 2024 salary would be paid during the week. In particular,
the Club informed the Player in the following terms:
“1) USD 1,750, part of the monthly salary (7 days) for June 2024.
Note: USD 2,000 part (8, noy 7 days including the 23rd) of the monthly salary for June 2024
– paid to him in full – specifically USD 2,000.
2) USD 7,500 monthly salary for the months of July, August, September and November 2024.
Note: USD 7,500 monthly salary for July, August, September and October 2024 – USD 28,000.
Approximately USD 10,000 has been paid”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17720
6.
In addition, the Club pointed out that the Player had missed training after the first two
weeks at the Club, and suggested to have a phone call.
7.
On 10 December 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s email accepting to have a phone
call.
8.
On 18 December 2024, the Club sent an email to the Player as follows:
“We confirm that we noted in our telephone conversation yesterday. The club will gradually
close the current debt to the player by the end of this year, specifically by 30.12.2024”.
9.
On 19 December 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract.
10. Also on 19 December 2024, the Club replied to the aforementioned termination notice in
the following terms:
“We spoke on the phone and agreed that the club would resolve the problem by December
30, despite the sever financial crisis. We wrote to you yesterday by email, and sent us today’s
email in response to another message, also incorrectly indicated numbers that do not
correspond to reality.
We also wrote to you about the player’s multiple violations before, but offered to resolve
everything peacefully.
We have one question, why did you not refuse to accept the agreement during the phone
conversation, but instead told us that you would send us an agreement from. We are in a
very difficult and, in my opinion, unfair situation.
We are waiting for your personal explanation regarding the above fact.
We remind you once again that the player left the club prematurely without permission,
about which you were informed by email on December 9”.
11. On 1 January 2025, the Player concluded a new employment contract with the Estonian
club Levadia FC SK, valid as from 1 January 2025 until 30 November 2026.
12. Pursuant to Clause 5 of this new contract, the Player is entitled to receive a monthly
remuneration of EUR 860 net and a monthly sports subsidy of EUR 1,770 net, i.e., a total of
EUR 2,630 net per month.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17720
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 8 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
14. The Player contended that the Club failed to pay more than two monthly salaries in their
due dates, and that he has only received USD 4,873.24 from the Club. In addition, the Player
sustained that he had a just cause to terminate the Contract on 19 December 2024 after
having put the Club in default, to no avail.
15. Based on the above, the Player claimed to be entitled to the remuneration that remained
unpaid at the day of termination, in the amount of USD 36,126.76 for the period from July
to November 2024, and to compensation for breach of contract, amounting to USD
125,200, after mitigating the residual value of the Contract with the new contract concluded
with Levadia FC SK (“EUR 49,970 (USD 51,800)”) and applying an additional compensation of
three monthly salaries, totalling USD 22,500.
16. The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of the foregoing, FIFA FT is respectfully requested:
I. To declare the Contract unilaterally terminated with just cause, due to the unjust breach
of Contract by the Club during the protected period;
II. To condemn the Respondent to pay in favour of the Claimant the total amount of USD
161,326.76 corresponding to the:
a) Unlawfully unpaid salaries for July, August, September, October, November and a part
(14 days) of June 2024, in the amount of USD 36,126.76, and
b) Mitigated Compensation for the unjustified breach of Contract in the amount of USD
102,700 and
c) Additional Compensation corresponding to three monthly salaries in the amount of
USD 22,500.
Within 45 days as from the date of notification of the decision in the matter of the
reference to the Respondent; and
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17720
d) To condemn the Respondent to pay in favour of the Claimant default interest of 5%
p.a. as of the due dates:
a) 5 July 2024, part of salary for June – USD 3,500; 5 August 2024, salary for July 2024
– 2,626.76; 5 September 2024, salary for August 2024 – USD 7,500: 5 October 2024,
salary for September 2024 – USD 7,500: 5 November 2024, salary for October 2024
– USD 7,500; 5 December 2024, salary for November 2024 – USD 7,500;
b) 19 December 2024, Mitigated and Additional Compensation,
Until the date of effective payment; and
III. To impose sporting sanctions against the Respondent for the breach of Contract during
the protected period, pursuant to article 17.4 of the FIFA RSTP, and ban the Respondent
from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and
consecutive registration periods”.
b. Position of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Club acknowledged being in default with the Player for the months of
September, October and November 2024. According to the Club, it was agreed to pay the
financial debt by 30 December 2024. In this regard, the Club argued that “We wrote [the
Player’s legal representative] about this the next day by e-mail, as he requested. But the next
day [the Player’s legal representative] sent a notice of unilateral termination of the contract,
and not in response to all previous correspondence, which seemed rather strange to us”.
18. In addition, the Club asserted that the Player left the Club on 7 December 2024, and that
he did not show up for the match played on 8 December 2024 in the Georgian
Championship.
19. Lastly, the Club contended that the Player wanted to go to Estonia for tourism purposes,
and that the Club arranged the visa for the Player, “as a result of which the player went to
Estonia and signed an employment contract with the Estonian club”.
20. The Club requested the following relief:
“Based on all of the above, our position is as follows:
Our club must reimburse the player for the debt as of December 7 in the amount of 22,500
US dollars”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17720
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
21. In his rejoinder, the Player reiterated that the Club breached the Contract by failing to meet
its financial obligations.
22. In addition, the Player argued that the Club’s email dated 9 December 2024 only stipulates
the Club’s calculation of the debt towards the Player, which was never accepted by him.
Moreover, the Player denied the existence of any agreement between the Parties as to the
amounts due.
23. The Player further contended that the Club failed to provide any evidence as to his alleged
absence in the match of 8 December 2024, nor did the Club send any written warning to
the Player in this regard.
24. Lastly, the Player argued that from January 2022 to February 2024 he was registered with
another Estonian club. In this regard, he made close friends and travelled to Estonia to
spend the Christmas holidays with his friends. The Player also contended that he started
negotiating the terms of the contract concluded with Levadia FC SK only after terminating
the Contract with the Club.
d. Respondent’s final comments
25. The Club failed to provide any additional comments despite having been invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 8 January 2025 and submitted for
decision on 2 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
27. 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), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17720
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Gambian player
and a Georgian club.
28. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations (January 2025 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged
on 8 January 2025, the January 2025 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
29. 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 he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and/or the Platform.
c. Merits of the dispute
30. 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 he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
31. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly disputed the justice of the early termination of the Contract by the
Player, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club as
per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
32. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
33. The Single Judge then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17720
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligations.
34. The Single Judge then noted that the Player claimed that, at the time of termination (i.e., 19
December 2024) he had only received USD 4,873.23 on an unspecified date. Based on this,
the Player claimed that USD 36,126.76 remained outstanding at the day of termination, as
follows:
o USD 6,126.76 for July 2024, after deducting the amounts acknowledged to the
months of June and July 2024;
o USD 7,500 for August 2024;
o USD 7,500 for September 2024;
o USD 7,500 for October 2024; and
o USD 7,500 for November 2024.
35. The Single Judge further noted that the Player provided written evidence of having put the
Club in default twice, the second time, requesting the payment of the aforementioned sum,
on 3 December 2024, i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on
19 December 2024.
36. The Single Judge also noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between the
Parties. Nonetheless, the Single Judge underscored that although the Club claimed to have
partially fulfilled its financial obligations, it failed to submit any evidence of compliance with
the amounts claimed by the Player. Moreover, the Club did not provide any evidence
regarding the alleged agreement with the Player or his purported absences.
37. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Player had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations and that the Club is therefore held
liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
38. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of the breach of contract committed by the Club.
39. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific request for relief of the Player, amounts to USD 43,626.76,
corresponding to the months of July (in part), August, September, October, November and
December 2024.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17720
40. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of termination, i.e., USD 43,626.76 for the
aforementioned monthly instalments.
41. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding remuneration, as of the 5th day of each
month in line with the Player’s request for relief, except for the remuneration of December
2024, which the Single Judge decided to award as of the date of termination.
42. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single
Judge firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage suffered,
according to the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts and
circumstances of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned.
43. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the
Parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract.
44. In this regard, the Single Judge established that no such compensation clause was included
in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
45. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
46. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
until its term. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 155,500
(i.e., the residual value of the Contract for January 2025 to July 2026) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
47. In continuation, the Single Judge verified whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under
a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17720
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
48. Indeed, the Player found new employment with the Estonian club Levadia FC. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player is entitled to EUR 2,630 per
month. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the
total amount of EUR 49,970 (i.e., EUR 2,630 x 19 months), which is equivalent to USD 52,305
at the time of termination.
49. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation, should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Single Judge confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Club, and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
50. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the amount of additional compensation
of USD 22,500, i.e., three month’s salaries at the time of termination (USD 7,500 x 3).
51. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Club should, in principle, pay the
amount of USD 125,695 to the Player per the following calculation, which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
USD 155,500 – USD 52,305 + USD 22,500
52. However, as the Player had expressly limited his claim to USD 161,326.76 in totum and had
already been awarded USD 43,626.76 in outstanding remuneration, the Single Judge found
that it was bound by the principle of ne ultra petita. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded
that the Player should only be awarded USD 117,700 as compensation for breach of
contract, plus 5% interest per annum as from the day of termination (i.e., 19 December
2024) until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
53. In continuation, and 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. In this regard, he highlighted that, against clubs, the
consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist, in
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17720
principle, of a ban from registering new players, either nationally or internationally, up until
the due amounts are paid.
54. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge wished to remark that in accordance with art.
24 par. 3 lit. a) of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded
where the pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting
sanction on the basis of art. 12bis, 17 or 18quarter of the Regulations.
55. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on 16 January 2025 and notified on 24 January 2025, a transfer ban has been
imposed on the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in the
case FPSD-16994.
56. Accordingly, the Single Judge established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall
not apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations,
in particular the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
57. In view of the above, the Single Judge decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest
is not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and a formal decision.
58. 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.
d. Costs
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the Parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17720
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Bubacarr Tambedou, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Dinamo Batumi, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 43,626.76 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 6,126.76 as from 5 August 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,500 as from 5 September 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,500 as from 5 October 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,500 as from 5 November 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,500 as from 5 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 7,500 as from 19 December 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
- USD 117,700 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as
from 19 December 2024 until the date of effective payment.
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.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17720
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17720
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to article 57 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. article 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