Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16179
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Joel Abu
Hanna
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Joel Abu Hanna, Germany & Israel
Represented by Nir Inbar
RESPONDENT:
Maccabi Netanya Football Club, Israel
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16179
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 July 2023, the German and Israeli player, Joel Abu Hanna (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Israeli club, Maccabi Netanya Football Club (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
4 July 2023 until 31 May 2025.
2.
The Contract specified, inter alia, the following:
“Player Agreement
(Hereinafter: the “Annex” or the “Agreement”)
Entered into and signed on July 4, 2023
- Between –
Football Club Maccabi Netanya (2016) Ltd
(“the Team” or “the Club”)
- And –
Joel Abu Hanna
Israeli ID no. 2[ . . . ]
(the “Player”)”
3.
On 4 August 2024, the parties concluded a termination agreement (hereinafter: the
Termination Agreement), pursuant to which the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant
EUR 45,000, broken down into the following instalments:
-
4.
“EUR 30,000 by 30 August 2024”;
“EUR 15,000 by 30 October 2024.”
The Termination Agreement further specified as follows:
“It is explicitly agreed that the Player shall pay in Germany all taxes deriving from such income.”
[...]
“This Agreement shall supersede the Employment Contract, annex(s), and any other agreements
and/or commitments signed before the date of this Agreement.”
5.
With respect to the parties’ nationalities, the Termination Agreement specified as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16179
“MUTUAL TERMINATION AGREEMENT
This Mutual Termination Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made on 4 August 2024 between:
1. [The Respondent . . . ];
And,
2. [The Claimant], a German professional player [ . . . ]”
6.
On 9 September 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent citing a total
of EUR 30,000 in outstanding remuneration from the Termination Agreement, which
represented
-
7.
EUR 7,500 claimed as remaining from the first instalment due on 30 August 2024;
EUR 15,000 for the second instalment due on 30 October 2024;
EUR 7,500 penalty for the late payment of a portion of the first instalment.
The Claimant provided the Respondent 10 days to fulfil its financial obligation.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 23 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
9.
On 23 September 2024, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA for outstanding
remuneration.
10. The Claimant stated that the default notice remained unanswered and the payments
outstanding.
11. The Claimant requested the following relief:
“FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber shall order the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the total
amount of EUR 30,000, plus 5% interest p.a as from 7 September 2024 until effective payment
which is comprised of the following amounts:
1.1 Overdue Payable for the First Payment in the amount of EUR 7,500;
1.2 Overdue payable for the Second Payment in the amount of EUR 15,000;
1.3 Agreed penalty in the amount of EUR 7,500;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16179
FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber shall impose Sporting Sanctions on the Respondent.”
b. Position of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s position.
13. The Club highlighted that the Claimant holds dual citizenship, German and Israeli.
14. The Club further pointed out that the Termination Agreement stipulated the Claimant
would be responsible for all taxes in Germany from the income arising from the
Termination Agreement’s compensation.
15. The Club stated that it applied for a tax exemption from the Israeli tax authorities as it had
done with prior payments to the Claimant, but that the outgoing payment of EUR 30,000
was subjected to a 25% withholding amounting to EUR 7,500.
16. The Club stated that it transferred the second instalment of EUR 15,000 on 29 October
2024, minus a 25% income tax for the Israelian tax authorities, EUR 3,750, resulting in a net
payment of EUR 11,250.
17. The Club asserted that pursuant to the Israeli-German Tax Treaty (a copy of which was
provided by the Respondent), the Claimant would be eligible for a tax credit in Germany
for the tax withheld in Israel.
18. The Club requested the following relief:
2.1.
“Dismiss the Claimant’s Statement of Claim in its entirety;
2.2.
Order the Claimant to: (i) fully bear this procedure costs, and (ii) fully or partially
contribute to the legal expenses and other expenses incurred by the Club and the DRC in
connection with these proceedings.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
19. In his replica, the Claimant did not dispute the receipt of EUR 11,250.
20. The Claimant maintained that the Termination Agreement did not provide for a deduction
of the Israeli tax obligation before remittance of the amounts to the Claimant. The Claimant
noted that under the Contract the Claimant was entitled to “net” remuneration and that
the amounts negotiated in the Termination Agreement were based on the salary the Player
would have earned had the Contract been fulfilled.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16179
21. The Claimant provided testimony of a tax expert which included, inter alia, as follows:
“However, pursuant to DTA Article 22 (1) d, Germany reserves the right to include this income in
the calculation of the tax rate (so-called progression proviso). The German Income Tax Act
incorporates this provision in Section 32b (1) No. 4 EStG.
Due to this provision, the settlement payment increases the applicable tax rate on the rental
income taxable in Germany, which results in an indirect additional tax burden due to the
settlement payments from Israel.”
22. The Claimant reiterated that the full net payment of the EUR 45,000 remained due and that
the EUR 7,500 penalty remains valid as well due to the delay of the payment.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
23. In its duplica, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s position and emphasized that the
Termination Agreement dismissed all previous claims of the parties against each other and
created new commitments, thereby rendering previous obligations from the Contract not
valid.
24. The Respondent added that the Claimant’s assertion that the entitlements were agreed to
as net and linked to the original Contract were false and not supported.
25. Regarding the tax matter, the Respondent echoed its claim that it remitted a total amount
of EUR 45,000 to the Claimant with supporting receipts and that the Termination
Agreement did not provide that this amount needed to be grossed up or remitted as a net
value.
26. The Club submitted its own expert opinion which included, inter alia, the following:
6. “The Treaty also includes a specific article regarding income earned by artists and athletes,
which provides that income earned in another contracting state, other than the state of
residence, can be taxed in that other contracting state.
7. It is also apparent that the Treaty includes a clause stipulating that, subject to the provisions
of German tax law regarding foreign tax credits, in the case of a German resident, the Israeli tax
paid according to Israeli law and in accordance with the Treaty provisions, may be credited
against the German tax on the taxable income, with respect to various types of income listed in
the article.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16179
e. Information Provided by the IFA
27. At the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the Israeli Football Association (IFA) informed
that the Player was registered with the Club as an Israeli national with an Israeli ID card and
included a copy of the Player’s Electronic Player Passport (EPP), his Israeli passport, and a
copy of the Contract which was registered into the instruction on the FIFA Transfer
Matching System (TMS).
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 23 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 16 January 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.
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 (January 2025 edition) (hereinafter: the
Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with employmentrelated disputes with an international dimension.
30. At this point, the DRC recalled that the wording of the article in question clearly implies that
the first condition that needs to be compulsorily fulfilled for FIFA to be competent to hear
an employment related dispute between a club and a player is that the said dispute has an
international dimension. This means, in other words, that in case the player has the same
nationality from the country where the club that holds his registration is based, the relevant
dispute has to be considered a purely internal (national) matter to be decided by the
competent authorities in the respective country.
31. The Chamber further recalled that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal shows that in
cases where a player has dual citizenship, their registration is a determining factor when
assessing if the international dimension of the dispute is given, considering that clubs may
enjoy benefits in registering a player with a certain nationality, inter alia, due to the specific
limitations in the number of foreign players.
32. According to the DRC, this rationale has been confirmed consistently both by the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In
particular, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Commentary on the Regulations (Edition 2023)
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16179
to art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, which provides: “In cases of dual nationality, the
internationality of a dispute is determined according to the nationality under which a player
is registered to play football for the relevant club” (emphasis added).
33. The Chamber further examined FIFA and CAS jurisprudence which provided that the
nationality should be analysed at the time of the event giving rise to the dispute, and
noted that the operative factor in such cases was whether the shared nationality did not
exist at the applicable time of the underlying events, i.e., whether the relevant player in fact
possessed the second nationality at the time the events giving rise to the dispute occurred.
34. The Chamber considered that the above considerations were all instructive in this case, as
the Player is apparently both German and Israeli.
35. In particular, the Chamber observed that in accordance with the Contract, the Player was
employed as an Israeli while the Termination Agreement had noted the Player’s German
nationality. Similarly, the Player possessed both nationalities at the time the Player was
registered with the Club, as well as at the time the Termination Agreement was concluded.
36. As a result, and with due regard to the abovementioned jurisprudence, the Chamber
determined that the international dimension should be established on the basis of the
Player’s registration with IFA. The Chamber noted that even in situations where a player
listed a specific nationality on the contract, the determinative factor was the player’s
registration.
37. The Chamber then emphasised that the information as well as the supporting documents
provided by the IFA showed that the Player was registered with the (Israeli) Club under the
Israeli nationality. Furthermore, the DRC did not find any reason in the case file to conclude
that such registration was made in error.
38. In the same vein, the Chamber considered that the reference to the German nationality
contained in Termination Agreement ultimately was insufficient to overcome the
determination for purposes of the international element.
39. Taking all of the above together, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Player toward
the Club lacks international dimension as required by article 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Football Tribunal does not
have jurisdiction to hear the dispute at stake.
b. Costs
40. 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,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16179
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
41. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16179
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Joel Abu
Hanna.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16179
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. 11