Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17758
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Saint Dorcas
Akanapio
BY:
Bruinewoud Alexandra GOMEZ (Uruguay & the Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
Saint Dorcas Akanapio, Congo
Represented by Talel Ben Hadj
RESPONDENT:
Sohar, Oman
Represented by Sihem Metedji-Talbi
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17758
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the present case are:
- the player Saint Dorcas Akanapio from Congo (hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player);
and
- the club Sohar from Oman (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club).
2.
The Player provided a copy of an unsigned employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
concluded between the Player and the Club valid as from 1 August 2024 until 20 May 2025.
3.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of USD 2,000.
4.
Clause 11 of the Contract read as follows:
“- In the event of termination of the contract, the club must be notified thirty days in advance
and the penalty clause must be paid as follows:
- In the event that the club desires to terminate the player's contract, he shall pay one full
salaries as a penalty clause.
- In the event that the player wants to terminate the contract or obtain an external offer, he
must pay a penalty clause of two full salaries.
- The club has the right to terminate the player’s contract in the event that his injury has
completed a month, after being presented to a neutral hospital that acknowledges this.
- In the event that the player obtains an external offer, the club’s percentage is 25% of the
contract value.
- In the event that it is discovered that the player had an old injury and concealed this from
the club, the club has the right to terminate his contract and recover all amounts paid to the
player whenever this is”.
5.
According to the information retrieved from Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Player’s
transfer to the Club was cancelled. Nonetheless, it included an employment contract, which
is the same as the one provided by the Player (i.e., the Contract) and is duly signed by both
parties.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17758
6.
On 24 November 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested
payment of USD 6,000 corresponding to his salaries from August 2024 to October 2024.
The Claimant granted the Respondent a deadline of ten days to fulfill this payment
obligation.
7.
On 15 December 2024, the Claimant sent a correspondence to the Respondent indicating
that the Club only paid November salary and that there was a remaining amount of USD
6,000 corresponding to the salaries of August, September and October 2024. The Claimant
requested the payment of that amount within 72 hours.
8.
On 5 January 2025, the Player issued a formal notice of termination to the Club, citing the
continued non-payment of salaries as the reason for termination.
9.
The Player informed the FIFA general secretariat that he remained unemployed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 10 January 2025 the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
11. The Player argued that he had just cause to terminate the Contract in accordance with art.
14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
In his claim the Player mentioned he “participated in every official and friendly match until he
sustained an injury during a game. Despite his injury, he remained in Oman without receiving
his due salaries”.
12. The Player requested the following relief:
“1. Order Sohar Sports Club to pay all outstanding amounts, including
•
•
•
Unpaid salaries (August, September, October 2024, December 2024) =USD 8,000.
Reimbursement of flight ticket costs: USD 605,52.
Compensation for Breach of Contract: USD 2,000 / Month x 4.67 Months = USD
9,340.
2. Impose appropriate sanctions on Sohar Sports Club for breach of contract and
unethical behavior.”
13. As to the Contract, the Claimant indicated he “has never received a signed copy of his contract
from the club. However, considering that he has participated in official matches for the club, a
contractual agreement is deemed to have been established under the circumstances.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17758
b. Position of the Respondent
14. The Respondent failed to provide its position to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 10 January 2025 and submitted
for decision on 24 March 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.
16. 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
Regulations (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a player from Congo and a club from Omani.
17. 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
18. 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 Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
19. 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17758
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20.
The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and acknowledged that the
present claim was initiated by the Player, who asserts that he had just cause to terminate
the Contract due to the Club’s alleged failure to fulfill certain financial obligations
stipulated therein.
21.
The Club, on the other hand, did not respond to the claim, entailing that the Single Judge’s
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 arts. 14 par. 1 and 21 par.
1 of the Procedural Rules.
22.
As a preliminary observation, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant did not submit a
signed copy of the Contract. However, a duly signed version of the Contract was available
in the TMS, confirming that both parties had consented to its terms. The Single Judge
further observed that, although the transfer was marked as cancelled in TMS, consistent
with the established jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the non-registration of a
player does not constitute a valid ground for failing to execute a contract. Consequently,
the Single Judge concluded that a valid and binding employment contract existed
between the parties.
23.
The Single Judge, then acknowledged that her task was to determine whether the
Contract was terminated with just cause.
24.
In this respect, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to remind the parties that 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 to ensure the fulfilment of the contractual duties by the counterparty, such
measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
25.
In continuation, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant claims not having received
his remuneration corresponding to August, September, October 2024, December 2024.
Furthermore, the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent
in default on 24 November and 15 December 2024 before unilaterally terminating the
Contract on 5 January 2025.
26.
The Single Judge 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
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17758
between the parties. Nonetheless, no evidence was provided, the Respondent failed to
provide its position to the claim.
27. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded the Respondent had thus repeatedly and for a
significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the
Claimant, and therefore concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate the contract
in accordance with art. 14 par. 1 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
28. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned her attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
29. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are equivalent to 4 salaries under
the contract, amounting to USD 8,000 (August 2024, September 2024, October 2024 and
December 2024).
30. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge 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
8,000.
31. In addition, the Single Judge stated that the Claimant would be in principle entitled to 5%
interest p.a. on the outstanding amounts. However, she observed that the Claimant did not
request it, and therefore in accordance with the principle ne ultra petita, the Single Judge
did not award it.
32. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned 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.
33. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17758
34. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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.
35. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant 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 9,290.32 (i.e., 4*2,000 + USD,1290.32
(20/31)) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
36. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Claimant 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 compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
Player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
37. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
38. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in
case the Player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
39. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the Player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 9,290.32, as the residual value of the contract.
40. In addition, the Single Judge stated that the Claimant would be in principle entitled to 5%
interest p.a. on the compensation. However, she observed that the Claimant did not
request it, and therefore in accordance with the principle ne ultra petita, the Single Judge
did not award it.
41. Lastly, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant requested the reimbursement of flight
tickets, however the Single Judge observed that it lacks contractual basis and in any case
no evidence was provided. Therefore, the Single Judge rejected this part of the claim.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
42. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17758
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.
43. 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.
44. 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
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.
45. 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.
46. 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
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17758
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Saint Dorcas Akanapio, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sohar, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 8,000 as outstanding remuneration.
- USD 9.290.32 as compensation for breach of contract.
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-17758
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