Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18265
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Cyrille Tchayi Tchamba
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Cyrille Tchayi Tchamba, Cameroon
Represented by Jonás Vallina
RESPONDENT:
Massafi AL-Jonob, Iraq
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18265
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Cameroonian player Cyrille Tchayi Tchamba (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the Player) and the Iraqi club Massafi AL-Jonob (hereinafter: the Respondent or
the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1
September 2024 until 31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a
monthly salary of USD 4,500 at the end of each Gregorian month.
3.
On 1 February 2025, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Georgian club
FC Spaeri Tbilisi, valid as from its date of signature until 31 December 2025.
4.
In accordance with the employment contract with FC Spaeri Tbilisi, the Claimant is entitled
to a monthly salary of GEL 2,500.
5.
On 6 February 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
within 10 days of the entire value of the Contract, i.e. USD 40,500, as compensation for the
termination of the employment relationship without just cause.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 18 February 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
In his claim, the Player argued that the Respondent had repeatedly and for a significant
period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards him. Therefore, it is
the position of the Player that the Club unilaterally terminated the Contract without having
a just cause on 1 September 2024. In this regard, the Player noted that the Club never sent
him the necessary VISA and flight tickets to travel to Iraq.
8.
The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“1. The Respondent is condemned to pay to the player the total sum 40.500,00 USD as
compensation due an early termination without a just cause plus 5% interest p.a. over such
amount since 1 September 2024 until the effective date of payment;
2.The Respondent will make effective the full payment (including all applicable interests) to the
bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form;
3. Costs fees imposition to the Respondent.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18265
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. 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 18 February 2025 and submitted for decision
on 6 June 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.
11. 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 DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Cameroonian
player and a Iraqi club.
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18265
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
15. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of the Player against the Club regarding the termination of their employment
relationship.
16. On one hand, the Chamber noted that, according to the Claimant, the Respondent
terminated the Contract without just cause on 1 September 2024 as it never sent him the
necessary VISA and flight tickets to travel to Iraq.
17. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Club 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. 21 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules.
18. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to assess, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, the alleged termination of the Contract, and to
determine whether the Respondent had terminated it without just cause as argued by the
Claimant.
19. In this regard, the Chamber recalled the content of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it. On this note, the
Chamber deemed that it was up to the Player to prove the termination of the Contract by
the Club for which he claims compensation for its alleged breach.
20. In the present matter, after a thorough analysis of the evidence on file, the Chamber
established that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the
termination of the employment relationship by the Respondent. In fact, the Chamber
observed that the Claimant failed to present any evidence regarding the termination of the
Contract, such as a notice from the Respondent, and that the Claimant did not provide any
proof to support his allegations regarding the necessary VISA and flight tickets to travel to
Iraq.
21. In addition, by looking closely at the behaviour of the parties, it appears that neither of
them can be held responsible for the non-continuation of the contractual relationship as
neither of them showed interest therein. In fact, the Chamber pointed out that, based on
the evidence on file, there was no communication between the parties from the start of
the Contract on 1 September 2024 and the Player’s default notice dated 6 February 2025.
In this, the Chamber also noted that the Player sent the default notice to the Club when he
had already signed a new employment contract.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18265
22. In light of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Player shall
be rejected as he failed to establish that the Club terminated the employment relationship.
d. Costs
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18265
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Cyrille Tchayi Tchamba, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18265
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. 8