Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5921
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 August 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Richard Akonnor Iro
BY:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
Laurel Vaurasi (Fiji), member
Khadija Timera (Senegal), member
CLAIMANT:
Liberty Prof FC, Ghana
Represented by Mr Ashford Tettey Oku
RESPONDENT 1:
Richard Akonnor Iro, Ghana
RESPONDENT 2:
Al Jazira, United Arab Emirates
Page 2
REF FPSD-5921
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 25 April 2019, the Ghanaian player Richard Akonnor Iro (d.o.b. 6 February 2004,
hereinafter: the player) and the Ghanaian club Liberty Prof FC (hereinafter: Liberty)
concluded an employment contract valid as from 25 April 2019 until 24 April 2022.
2.
According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of Ghanaian
New Cedi (GHS) 500, payable at the end of each month.
3.
On 12 December 2019, Liberty wrote to the Ghanaian FA in order to request their
“assistance in withdrawing our players (…) and Richard Akonnor 06/02/2004 from Aljazira FC
back to Ghana. The above mentioned players are registered players of our club and were sent
to Dubai for trials with the club Aljazira FC with the understanding that if they were interested
after a 2 month observation period they would sign them when they turn 18. The agreed return
date has elapsed and we have been trying to get the club to return the player to us but they
have refused. They went as far as asking them through medicals without their consent of
informing us. Therese player are minors and we are very worried from their safety and
wellbeing. We ask that as official complaint be sent to UAEFA as well as FIFA to expedite the
return of the boys and report the conduct of the club”.
4.
On 20 December 2020, the UAE FA sent a letter to the Ghanaian FA, with reference to the
player Richard Akonnor, in which it informed the latter that “Al Jazira Cub wishes to register
the mentioned player above. Therefore, please keep us updated if the said player is currently
registered or was registered in the past with any of your affiliated clubs or if he was ever
participated with any of your national team, at any category. We hereby inform you that if no
answer is received within 30 days from the request, the UAEFA will assume that the player is
not registered in your association and the player will be registered at our club”.
5.
On 21 December 2020, the Ghana FA replied to the UAE FA that “the player Richard Akonnor
is currently registered with our club Dansoman Liberty Professionals FC and has a contract
with them which will expire in April 2022”.
6.
On 29 March 2022, Liberty sent a letter to Al Jazira FC (hereinafter: Al Jazira), proposing
that the parties try to amicably solve the following situation: The player has a valid and
binding contract with Liberty, valid from 25 April 2019 to 24 April 2022. Since early 2019,
Al Jazira has shown interest in the player and the latter was released for trials not
exceeding 2 months. In the course of the trial period, the clubs started negotiations, but
those remained inconclusive. At the end of the trial period, the player was not returned
to Liberty, in spite of Liberty’s warning of 12 December 2019. Liberty understands that Al
Jazira is acting in bad faith, trying to retain the player in the UAE until the natural expiry
of this contract with Liberty in order to sign him as a free player. Finally, Liberty advises
Al Jazira to conclude the transfer of the player from Ghana by not later than
Page 3
REF FPSD-5921
31 March 2022; otherwise, Liberty would lodge a claim at FIFA for breach of contract and
inducement to breach.
7.
On 6 February 2022, the player concluded an employment contract with the Emirati club
Al Jazira, valid as from 1 May 2022 until 30 June 2025, with the possibility of extending it
for one more season, according to which he is entitled to the following remuneration:
−
−
−
−
−
From 01/05/2022 to 30/06/2022: a net monthly salary of USD 10,000, payable at
the end of each month;
From 01/07/2022 to 30/06/2023: a net monthly salary of USD 12,000, payable at
the end of each month;
From 01/07/2023 to 30/06/2024: a net monthly salary of USD 15,000, payable at
the end of each month;
From 01/07/2024 to 30/06/2025: a net monthly salary of USD 18,000, payable at
the end of each month;
From 01/07/2025 to 30/06/2026: a net monthly salary of USD 28,000, payable at
the end of each month.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 2 May 2022, Liberty 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 / Liberty
9.
Liberty lodged a claim against the player and Al Jazira before FIFA for breach of contract
and inducement to breach, respectively.
10. In its claim, Liberty claimed that it had a valid employment contract with the player, valid
from 25 April 2019 to 24 April 2022. According to the club, in early October 2019 Liberty
and Al Jazira orally agreed that player – among others – would be released for a trial
period of two months with Al Jazira. As by the end of the two months the clubs could not
find an agreement as to the transfer of the player, the latter should have been returned
to Liberty, which did not happen. Liberty stated that on 14 January 2020, “Al Jazira
obstinately secured a resident permit valid up to 3rd January 2022 for the player” (note: copy
of player’s passport and alleged visa on file, but not legible).
11. On 20 December 2020, Al Jazira confirmed its intention to register the player, which was
declined by the Ghanian FA. Thus, Liberty understands that “Al Jazira kidnapped the Player,
offered him an employment contract, attempted to register him, and when this plot failed they
decided to keep him there till his contract eventually ran out on 24th April, 2022 to enable
them, short of any disputation, register him as a Free Agent for their Sole financial benefit”.
Furthermore, Liberty considers that “The Player’s lack of interest to return to Ghana and the
Page 4
REF FPSD-5921
periodic parental visits arranged by Al Jazira, established the fact that not only were Al Jazira
inducing him to breach a valid contract, but he was becoming a willing accomplice en route to
terminating a contract without just cause”. Thus, Liberty stated that the player, induced by
Al Jazira, clearly breached the employment contract with the club and should therefore
be held liable for the financial and sporting consequences of such.
12. Based on the foregoing, Liberty requested FIFA to establish that “both Richard Akonnor
and Al Jazira are jointly and severally held liable for not acting in good faith, attempting to
deceive the TMS system, inducement to breach a valid and protected contract without just
cause, complicity to breach, contrary to the principle of the maintenance of contractual
stability, AND ACCORDINGLY be sanctioned with a financial compensation of not less than
USD400,000, and any other sporting sanctions per Art. 17 (4) & (5) of the RSTP, and or any
order FIFA may deem appropriate”.
b. Position of the Respondent / the player
13. In his reply, the player acknowledged having signed a contract with Liberty on
25 April 2019, when he was 15 years old. He further claims to have travelled to the UAE
“to be resident with my father (…) in 2020 with my mother approval, as my father moved to
the United Arab Emirates for work and I had my father as my sponsor and legal guardian in
the United Arab Emirates since 14.01.2020”.
14. The player claimed to have gone to Al Jazira Academy as he wanted to continue to play
football and maintain his fitness level. The club was satisfied with his performance, but
unfortunately could not sign him before the expiry of his contract with Liberty. On
6 February 2022, as he turned 18, the player was invited by Al Jazira FC to enter a
professional contract as from 1 May 2022, valid until 30 June 2025, “with big money salary
compared to my previous contract with Liberty (…)”.
15. Thus, the player claimed he only concluded a new employment contract with Al Jazira
after his contract with Liberty expired. He denied having been “kidnapped or forced to stay
at the United Arab Emirates by anyone of by Al Jazira Club, and I was staying with my father as
my legal guardian with free will and without being forced”.
16. Finally, the player stated that he never received any salaries from Liberty, except for 1 or
2 monthly salaries at the very beginning of the contract.
17. Based on the foregoing, the player requested FIFA to entirely reject Liberty’s claim.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5921
c. Position of the Respondent / Al Jazira
18. In its reply to the claim, Al Jazira first pointed out that Liberty’s accusations were “(i) made
in bad faith, (ii) are misleading, and (iii) are contrary to the material evidence of this matter in
hand”.
19. In particular, Al Jazira pointed out that Liberty’s accusations that “an ‘oral expression of
interest by Al Jazira, the Player was released in early October 2019’”, that “Al Jazira FC secured
a residency to the Player valid up to 03 January 2022” and that “Al Jazira FC ‘kidnapped the
Player’ and ‘decided to keep him until there till his contract eventually ran out on 24 April 2022’”
are not supported by any evidence and should be entirely dismissed.
20. Al Jazira also pointed out that no evidence that Liberty’s correspondence of
12 December 2019 was effectively dispatched to and received by the Ghanian FA was
provided. The allegation that Al Jazira wanted to keep the player beyond the end date of
the alleged trials is neither logic nor proven, as the player was 16 years old by the time,
and the club would have to retain him for two long years. Furthermore, Liberty’s allegation
that the players “were sent to Dubai for trials with the club Al Jazira FC” cannot be upheld,
as Al Jazira is located in Abu Dhabi. Thus, for its inconsistency, this correspondence should
be entirely disregarded.
21. The club also pointed out that the contract concluded between the player and Liberty was
signed on 25 April 2019, when the player was 15 years old and is not signed by his parents;
thus, it should be considered as null and void.
22. In addition, considering that Liberty did not take any measures since the alleged breach
of the contract in December 2019, which it considers to be the event giving rise to the
dispute, and that the claim was only lodged in May 2022, Al Jazira deemed that Liberty’s
claim is prescribed and should therefore not be treated by FIFA.
23. With respect to the facts of the dispute, Al Jazira claimed that the player arrived in the UAE
with his father as a sponsor in January 2020, with a student visa. As per the club, “The
Player got introduced to the football academy of Al Jazira FC by a third party. As the Player was
showing remarkable improvements during training sessions, Al Jazira decided to enquire about
the Player from the GFA to explore the option of registering him under the category of “Resident
Amateur Player” as per the Regulations of the UAE Football Association (“UAEFA”). Being already
based in the country, Al Jazira would be interested in helping the Player to develop. Therefore,
on December 2020 Al Jazira FC requested the UAEFA to contact GFA to enquire about the
player’s status and whether the player fulfil the criteria set by the local regulators to be
registered as an Amateur Resident Player”. In spite of the fact that Liberty was made aware
of Al Jazira’s interest to register the player in December 2020, it did not take any measures
to ensure that the player would return and perform the contract. In fact, Liberty did not
Page 6
REF FPSD-5921
comply with any of its contractual obligations and only reacted to Al Jazira’s consultation
with its claim in March 2022.
24. Al Jazira only concluded an employment contract with the player after he turned 18 and
the contract would only start after the expiry of the previous contract of the player with
Liberty. Al Jazira duly contacted Liberty before signing the player and his hiring was done
in line with the provision of art. 18 par. 3 of the RSTP.
25. Furthermore, Liberty pointed out that “from the evidence submitted by the Claimant that the
Player was not training with the Claimant since, at least, October 2019 based on Appendix 2
of the claim. In other words, since October 2019 until March 2022 and at least for the duration
of 28 months the contract between the Claimant and the First Respondent has not been
executed by either party without any complains by any of them! The documents submitted by
the Claimant supports that the Claimant was aware that the First Respondent was residing in
the UAE since January 2020, and that on December 2020 Al Jazira FC, through the UAEFA, made
a first query on the possibility and eligibility to register the Player. However, those documents
do not contain any legal notices addressed to the Player from December 2019 until March
2022. (…) As a matter of fact, only on 29 March 2022 when the Claimant addressed a letter to
the Second Respondent accusing it of acts of criminal nature, the Claimant never put the First
Respondent in default for breaching the employment contract signed in April 2019, rather the
Claimant’s correspondence to the Second Respondent aimed for “advised to proceed
immediately, 2 days upon receipt of this letter, i.e. by 31 March 2022 to conclude transfer
negotiations”. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the Claimant’s real intentions from the Letter
addressed to the Second Respondent to conclude “transfer negotiations” aiming to secure a
financial benefits from the First Respondent rather than protecting the interest of a no longer
“minor” Player as alleged”.
26. Based on the foregoing, Al Jazira makes the following request for relief:
− “On the Procedural Issues
a) To rule that FIFA Tribunal is incompetent to hear the matter, pursuant to article 23.2 of
FIFA RSTP on the basis that more than two (2) years have elapsed from the event giving
rise to the dispute.
− On the Merits
a) To rule that the First Respondent lacked legal capacy when entered into an employment
contract with the Claimant and without the consent of the Player’s legal guardians and
therefore to consider this contract as null and void.
b) Acknowledge that Al Jazira FC acted in good faith and within its legal rights to enter into
an employment relationship with the First Respondent.
c) To dismiss the Claim and all the requests filed by the Claimant.
d) To rule that the Claimant shall bear all the cost and expenses related to this proceeding,
and pay the amount of 10,000 CHF as a contribution toward legal fees to Al Jazira FC”.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5921
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. 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 2 May 2022 and submitted
for decision on 4 August 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 2022
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.
28. 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.
a) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022 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 Ghanian club, a
Ghanian player and an Emirati club.
29. At this point, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations (July 2022 edition),
which stipulates that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more
than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The application
of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
30. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA
on 2 May 2022. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any the event
giving rise to the dispute before 2 May 2020 is affected by the statute of limitations.
31. The Chamber noted that, in the present case, Al Jazira contested the admissibility of the
claim as it deemed it prescribed. In this respect, Al Jazira pointed out that Liberty deemed
the player’s non-return around mid-December 2019 as the event giving rise to the
dispute. Thus, as the claim was only lodged on 2 May 2022, Al Jazira deemed that the
latter is prescribed.
32. After a thorough analysis of the matter, the Chamber concluded that the event giving rise
to the dispute is the alleged breach of contract with Al Jazira in March 2022 and,
consequently, that Liberty’s claim is admissible.
33. 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 (July 2022), and considering
that the present claim was lodged on 2 May 2022, the March 2022 edition of said
Page 8
REF FPSD-5921
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
34. 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
35. 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
36. 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 if the player breached
his alleged contract with Liberty and, in the affirmative, if Al Jazira induced such breach.
37. Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that both, the player and Al Jazira, argued that the
contract with Liberty cannot be considered as valid and binding as it was signed by the
player only, when he was 15 years old.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to address the following
issues:
−
−
Was there a valid and binding contract between the player and Liberty?
Was the contract breached without just cause by the player, induced by
Al Jazira?
39. Regarding the validity of the player’s contract with Liberty, the Chamber indeed stressed
that such contract was signed by the 15-year-old player only, without any consent of his
parents.
40. In this respect, the DRC firstly pointed out that an underaged player deserves the highest
protection under the Regulations.
Page 9
REF FPSD-5921
41. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the absence of the parents’ signature
cannot be cured, regardless the fact that the player remained playing with Liberty. In this
respect, the Chamber highlighted that an underaged player himself cannot give tacit
consent to the employment relationship.
42. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the contract with Liberty is not valid and
binding, making any further analysis on the merits obsolete.
ii. Consequences
43. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber rejected the claim of Liberty.
d. Costs
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5921
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Liberty Prof FC, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is rejected.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 11
REF FPSD-5921
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).
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
Page 12