Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11302
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 March 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Shobowale Ademola Alabi
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairperson
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), member
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
Shobowale Ademola Alabi, Nigeria
Represented by Pius Ndubuokwu
RESPONDENT:
Arab Contractors, Egypt
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11302
I. Facts of the case
1. On 24 January 2023, the Nigerian player Shobowale Ademola Alabi (hereinafter: the Claimant or
the player) and the Egyptian club Arab Contractors (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club)
concluded an employment contract valid until end of season 2025/2026 (hereinafter: the
Contract).
2. Clause 2 of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:
The two parties agreed on value of the contract gross amount of USD 156,250 to be distributed as
follows:
First season value 2022 / 2023
1st instalment an amount of USD 6,000 paid on 01/02/2023
2nd instalment an amount of USD 800 paid on 01/03/2023
3rd instalment an amount of USD 800 paid on 01/04/2023
4th instalment an amount of USD 800 paid on 01/05/2023
5th instalment an amount of USD 800 paid on 01/06/2023
6th instalment an amount of USD 800 paid on 01/07/2023
Second season value 2023/2024 an amount of USD 45,000 (…)
Third season value 2024/2025 an amount of USD 48,750 (…)
Fourth season value 2025/2026 an amount of USD 52,500 (…)
3. Clause 4 of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:
6. The Player should hear the taxes of this contract and other remuneration according to the law,
the club shall deduct taxes from the player’s dues and transfer them to the taxes under his
responsibility.
4. Clause 6 of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:
The player agrees and acknowledges that in case of contract termination before the expiry of its
term, he will be notified of this within 15 days from date of the last official match of the season.
The player is entitled to his due for the ended season only and is not entitled to claim any financial
compensation from the club for the remaining years of the contract.
5. On 18 July 2023, the parties allegedly concluded a “clearance certificate” (hereinafter: the Clearance
Certificate) in the following terms:
Declare that all my financial and physical rights have finished for my period as a football player in
the club, according to the concluded contract with Arab Contractors Sporting Club, That's because
I received all my financial and material benefits at the club.
I also confirm that I have not the right to claim the club with any other rights or financial dues
currently or prospectively under any name of the contract referred to above and dated 24 / 1 /
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11302
2023 .
This is an acknowledgment from me stating that all my dues have been cleared and a pledge from
me that I have no right to claim any financial or material entitlements from the club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6. On 10 August 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
7. According to the Claimant, the Respondent should be liable to pay the Claimant the sum of 2,400
USD outstanding instalment payments for the months of May 2023, June 2023 and July 2023 at
USD 800 monthly, plus 146,000 USD which is the residual value of the Contract.
8. The Claimant states that he put the Respondent in default in writing and granted the Respondent
a deadline of 15 days (22nd July 2023 expired on the 6th of August 2023) to comply with its
financial obligations. Moreover, it terminated the contract on 7 August 2023, with just cause.
9. The Claimant filed the following requests for relief:
The Claimant respectfully urges the DR to award the Claimant the underlisted reliefs in the present
dispute: The breakdown of the Claimant's relief is as follows:
A. Outstanding instalment payment for the month of May 2023 plus 5% interest Per Annum as from
the due date of payment.
B. Outstanding instalment payment for the month of June 2023 plus 5% interest per annum as
from the due date of payment.
C. Outstanding instalment payment for the month of July 2023 plus 5% interest per annum as from
the due date of payment.
D. Compensation for breach of contract totalling the residual value of the contract i.e., 146,000
USD plus 5% interest per annum.
F. Additional compensation of 48,000 USD
b. Position of the Respondent
10. In its reply, the Respondent states that the the Player has received “all his financial dues which is
demonstrated by a Declarations signed and fingerprinted by the Player and it also makes the Player
have no right to claim anything”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11302
11. According to the Respondent, “the Player showed obvious bad faith when he made numerous
attempts to mislead the FIFA, he intended and planned the full scenario to create a situation of just
cause to escape from the Club without any legal liability, or to seek a financial gain by getting a
compensation from the Club”.
12. The Respondent refers to the taxes which had to be paid by the Player. The Respondent argues
that the taxes “should be 2217,5 USD for the first season and by deducing 3% from the player salary
as a value for documenting the contract shared between the player and the club by which the tax on
the player is 150 USD + 3% as a tax for resource development fees 300 USD to be 450 USD. 9. Therefore,
there will be a total of 2,521.5 USD as a taxes on the player have not been paid yet.”
13. The Respondent submits that “it was agreed that taxes would be deducted at the end of the contract
so as not to reduce from the current value of the contract as the player is contract is not large enough
to bear him the taxes in the beginning of the contract”.
14. The Respondent further submits that “club should have deducted also from the player the remaining
amount of taxes which is (2,521.5 USD - 1600 USD= 921.5 USD) and both parties agreed about the
declaration and the club have not asked the player about the remaining amount as a good faith from
the club”.
15. The Respondent underlines that on 18 July 2023 both parties concluded the Clearance Certificate
“signed and fingerprinted by the Player himself by his free will, stating that the Player has received all
his financial due from the Club and. it also makes the player have no right to claim anything”.
16. The Respondent filed the following requests for relief:
1. Declaring that:
2.1. The Player terminated the Contract without just cause.
2.2. Alternatively, if the Player got deemed to have terminated with just cause, he should not be
entitled to any compensation.
2.3. Alternatively, if the Player shall be entitled to any compensation, it shall be significantly
mitigated as explained above.
c. Replica of the Claimant
17. The Claimant states that the Respondent forged the Clearance Certificate. Further, the
Respondent failed to provide the said document in its original form.
18. Moreover, the Claimant sustains that “there is a case before the Egyptian Federation wherein the
Respondent forged the signatures of 7 players in other to escape financial liability”.
19. The Claimant provides a document allegedly sent by the Respondent in reply to the Claimant
inquiry “wherein he wrote to the Respondent after the payment of $5,854 (Five Thousand Eight Hundred
and Fifty-Four United States Dollars) instead of $6000inquiring on the reason for the difference in
amount. The Respondent clearly admitted that this was a mistake and promised to pay the balance at
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11302
the end of the season”.
20. The Claimant “finds it laughable that it will sign a document waiving its financial rights on the
letterhead of the Respondent, and the Respondent by hand dates the document 18 July 2023
notwithstanding the document dated July 20, 2023”.
21. The Claimant “emphatically reiterate that no agreement was reached between him and the
Respondent for tax to be deducted at the end of the season and no evidence of such agreement has
been tendered before the DRC.”
22. According to the Claimant, the Respondent tried to bribe his legal representative in order to “drop
the case”.
23. The Claimant sustains that the Respondent has other cases against in which it forged documents
too.
24. The Claimant “humbly prays the DRC to dismiss the defense of the Respondent as it is buried in
falsehood and forgery.”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
25. The Respondent states that “the Player with bad faith, which is his forgery of Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5
attached with his last response, on which the Player relied to submit that the Club acknowledged its
debt and Inquiry on payment. The Club emphasizes that this document was never issued by the Club,
and if the Club is the one that issued it, it would have sent it to tl1e Player by email as it used to do.
Moreover, the documents are ridiculously clear that they are forged and not authentic”.
26. The Respondent wonders that if the Claimant “really received this document from the Club, then why
the player did not submit these documents in his first claim”.
27. In the view of the Respondent “in a very obvious cheating way he created and forgered (sic) Exhibit 3
& Exhibit 5 of his last response by using the stamp and signature that have been on the declaration
document that we have sent, we also explain this by placing the exhibit that he forgered (sic) and the
exhibit of the declaration next each other to illustrate the extent of the claimant's forgery and his
attempt to imitate the stamp and signature of the original document that we submitted before, and
the document he tried to forge (Exhibit 1 the comparison of the two documents).”
28. The Claimant insists that “in an attempt to give the documents any credibility, a very quick look at the
bottom of both documents would make this forgery absolutely clear, as it is clear that the stamp and
the signature were both under the words of Arab Contractors Sporting Club, EGYPT, also the date on
both documents is clearly can be seen that the date was written in a very strange way over the dots, in
a very clear attempt by the claimant to manipulate”.
29. The Respondent amended its requests for relief as follows:
1) To fully reject the Player's Claim; and
2) To ask the player to send the original Hard copy of his submitted documents (Exhibit 3 and
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11302
Exhibit 5 in his response), and we are fully prepared to send the original Hard copy of Declaration
that he is alleging us of forgery with to the honorable DRC.
3) To rule that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause;
4) Alternatively, if the Player is deemed to have terminated the Contract with just cause, he should
not be entitled to any compensation of any kind;
5) Alternatively, should the Player be entitled to any compensation, it shall be significantly
mitigated.
e. Production of documents
30. On 2 October 2023, due to the forgery allegations, FIFA general secretariat requested both parties
to provide the original documents they wished to rely upon.
31. On 2 October 2023, the Claimant stated as follows:
The Claimants submits that he was only allowed to take pictures of the original documents. The
said documents are in the possession of the respondent.
The Claimant also notes that even his paychecks and contract wasn’t given to him as he merely
took pictures of them.
In this regard, the Claimant urges the Respondent to tender all relevant documents in their original
form.
Also, the Respondent should also show proof of sending the above documents to the Claimant.
32. The Respondent sent via post the alleged original of the Clearance Certificate.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
33. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 10 August 2023 and submitted for decision on 7
March 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
34. Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11302
an international dimension between a Nigerian player and an Egyptian club.
35. 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. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2023 edition) and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 10 August 2023, the same edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
36. 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
37. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of the matter at
hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
38. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and
took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the
contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by
the Respondent as per the contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
39. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the evidence
presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the
Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had in
fact been fulfilled.
40. The Chamber 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, 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 obligation(s).
41. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration corresponding
to the months of May to July 2023. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant has
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11302
provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 22 July 2023, i.e. at least 15
days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 7 August 2023.
42. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving that
it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.
43. The Respondent alleges that the Claimant signed the Clearance Certificate confirming the
settlement of all debts. Conversely, the Claimant adduces that the Clearance Certificate had been
forged by the Respondent and that it contradicts some alleged correspondence issued. In this
regard, the Respondent argues that the Claimant has forged the said correspondences, and upon
request, it provided the original of the Clearance Certificate. On the other hand, the Claimant
failed to submit the original copy of the alleged correspondences.
44. The Chamber was not convinced by the arguments submitted by any of the parties to the dispute,
since both had inconsistent and unsubstantiated positions. However, in the case at hand the
Respondent had the onus to demonstrate the payment of the amounts claimed as overdue.
45. The Chamber found the signature of the Clearance Certificate as inconclusive. On the one hand,
the wording of the Clearance Certificate is unclear. Furthermore, it was not fully convinced that
the Claimant had signed the said document since the actions of the parties do not correlate to
the conclusion of the Clearance Certificate. Lastly, the Respondent had failed to provide other
additional clear and conclusive evidence of the payment of the amounts such as payslips, email
exchanges or personal tax payments for instance.
46. The Respondent had provided several bank checks which had not been challenged by the
Claimant in his replica. However, from the assessment of the evidence submitted and the overall
remuneration due to the Claimant for the duration of the Contract, the Chamber found that there
was a short payment of approximately USD 2,731, an amount similar to the amount claimed, and
the Respondent had not provided additional records or explanations for this.
47. The Chamber also referred to the argument of the Respondent as to the payment of taxes.
However, the Respondent failed to submit any tax certificates. The Respondent also failed to
advance any financial documentation proving that the Player was made aware of the
corresponding deductions. To the contrary, the proof of payment filed by the Club suggest that
each month the Player was credited a slightly different amount, without any identification and/or
breakdown.
48. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the
contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
49. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of
the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
50. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled
with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 3 salaries (May-July 2023) under
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-11302
the contract, amounting to USD 2,400.
51. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 2,400 (i.e. 3 times USD
800).
52. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of effective
payment.
53. Having stated the above, the Chamber 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 Chamber 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, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and
further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the
player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing
contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls
within the protected period.
54. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to
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. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such
compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
55. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set
out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a
non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
56. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from the date of
its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the
amount of USD 146,250 (45,000 + 48,750 + 52,500 = USD 146,250) (i.e. the residual value) serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
57. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to 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 DRC 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 compensation for breach of
contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
58. However, the Claimant informed that he had not found new employment.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-11302
59. The Chamber observed that the Claimant had limited his claim for compensation to the amount
of USD 146,000.
60. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of
the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 146,000 to the
player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
61. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation at
the rate of 5% p.a. as of 7 August 2023 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
62. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
63. In this regard, the DRC 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.
64. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of 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.
65. 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.
66. The DRC 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
67. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-11302
68. 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.
69. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-11302
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Shobowale Ademola Alabi, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Arab Contractors, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 2,400 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows
On USD 800 from 1 June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 800 from 1 July 2023 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 800 from 1 August 2023 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 146,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 7 August 2023 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.
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. 13
REF. FPSD-11302
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 14