DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14414
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 July 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Abdallah Ra'edMahmoud AI Fakhori,
BY:
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
Abdallah Ra'edMahmoud AI Fakhori, Jordan
Represented by Mr Emad Hanayneh
RESPONDENT:
Al Ain FC, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Mr Nasr El-din Azzam
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14414
I. Facts of the case
1. The player, Abdallah Ra'ed Mahmoud AI Fakhori, signed an employment contract with Al Ain
Club from 12 January 2023, until 30 May 2023.
2. Accordingly, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 7,000 net or USD 32,290 net
in total.
3. On 16 March 2024, the player sent a default notice, requesting his salaries from 12 January
2023 until 30 May 2023 for a total amount of USD 37,000, and granted 10 days to remedy the
default.
4. On 25 March 2024, the club replied indicated the following:
The club paid a total of SAR 91,673.
Additionally, SAR 4,950 were deducted for traffic violations (SAR 3,700 in March 2023 and
SAR 1,250 in May 2023).
Despite the contract being for USD 32,290, the player requested USD 37,000, which is
beyond the agreed terms.
The player is entitled to only SAR 24,464 (USD 6,523), which the club will pay at the
earliest opportunity.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5. On 18 April 2024, the player lodged a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal for outstanding
remuneration and requested the payment of USD 32,290 (salaries from January 2023 until
May 2023), plus 5% interest p.a.
6. In its reply, the club argued that the total debt is USD 6,854.
7. In particular, the club explained that the player requested USD 37,000 despite contract value
being USD 32,290.
8. The club argued that it paid the player as follows:
• 30 May 2023: SAR 16,623
• 30 May 2023: SAR 26,250
• 15 May 2023: SAR 15,000
• 03 July 2023: SAR 33,878.97 = USD 9,013 (Bank Transfer)
TOTAL: SAR 91,673 = USD 24,446
9. The club further argued that it further had to deduct USD 990 for traffic fines incurred by the
player.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14414
10. In his replica, the Claimant acknowledged having received SAR 76,673, equivalent to USD
20,443. As a result, he acknowledged that the rest of the debt is USD 11,847.
11. The Claimant further indicated that the amount which paid on 15 May 2023, i.e. SAR 15,000
(4000 USD) was a bonus.
12. Regarding the car traffic violations, the player argued that contract does not state that he is
responsible for any traffic violations while using the car. The player stated that he signed a
nonnegotiable form when receiving the car. Therefore, in the view of the player, the club
decided to deduct the traffic violation fines from the his salary on their own, without an
agreement between both parties.
13. In its duplica, the Respondent insisted that it has proved the Player received three payments
totaling SAR 76,752.
14. The club underlined that the player acknowledged receiving these three payments but
disputed the payment of SAR 15,000, claiming it was a bonus and not part of his salary. The
club disagreed with this claim, stating that the document clearly indicates that the SAR 15,000
was part of the foreign players' salaries.
15. The club argued that the Player's claim is a malicious attempt to enrich himself, as he was fully
aware of the payments he had received but still requested the entire amount of the contract.
16. The club emphasized that there is no basis for any bonuses in the Player's employment
contract, further supporting their argument that the SAR 15,000 was part of his salary.
17. The club concludes that it is evident and indisputable that the Player received a total amount
of SAR 91,673, equivalent to USD 24,446.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14414
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
First of all, the Single Judge Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Judge)
analysed whether he 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 April 2024 and submitted for decision on 17 July
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.
2.
Subsequently, the 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 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (March 2023 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 Jordanian player and a Saudi club.
3.
Subsequently, the Judge 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 18 April 2024, the March 2023 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations)
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
4.
The 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 Judge stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of
the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including
without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c.
5.
Merits of the dispute
His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Judge entered into the
merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned
facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Judge 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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14414
6.
The foregoing having been established, the Judge moved to the substance of the matter.
7.
In this context, the Judge acknowledged that the present matter concerns is a claim for
outstanding remuneration.
8.
In particular, the Judge noted that the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 7,000 net
and that, initially, he requested the payment of USD 32,290 for his salaries from January 2023 until
May 2023. Yet, the Judge noted that, during the proceedings, the Claimant acknowledged certain
partial payments made by the Respondent, but concluded that the amount of USD 11,847 is still
outstanding.
9.
On the other hand, the Judge noted that the club acknowledged a debt of USD 6,854.
10.
In other words, the Judge understood that, fundamentally, the parties are disputing a difference
of USD 4,993 (i.e. USD 11,847-6,854). The Judge understood that the main legal issue at stake is to
determine the exact amount due to the player.
11.
In order to determine said amount, the Judge first noted that the club paid SAR 15,000 on 15 May
2023, equivalent to approx. USD 4,000. The Judge observed that the player acknowledged this
payment, but argued that it relates to a bonus.
12.
Yet, after reviewing the document on file as well as the contract, the Judge observed that he does
not have elements that would allow him to consider it as a non-contractual bonus. Indeed, the
Judge observed that there is no convincing evidence either to determine that an extra-contractual
bonus was agreed upon. The Judge also observed that the player failed to explain the exact the
reason for said hypothetical bonus (i.e. usually, a specific sporting achievement) and therefore he
could only establish that it was related to a salary.
13.
The second element of dispute as to the determination of the outstanding amounts is the payment
of a traffic fine. The Judge noted that the club deducted USD 990 for a traffic fine violation
apparently committed by the player while driving with the club’s car.
14.
In this respect, the Judge observed that the contract does not provide any stipulation by means of
which traffic fines would be paid by the club on behalf of the player and then would subsequently
be deducted. Therefore, the Judge was of the firm opinion that the club could not perform this
deduction.
15.
As a result, the amount of USD 990 for the traffic fine is due.
16.
In view of the above, given the acknowledged debt (USD 6,854) and the additional traffic fine (USD
990), the Judge established that the final debt amounts to USD 7,844.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14414
17.
In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
DRC in this regard, the Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the
outstanding amounts as from the due dates until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
18.
Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Judge 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.
19.
In this regard, the 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.
20.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the 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.
21.
The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form.
22.
The 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.
23.
In continuation, the Judge referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any
club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual
basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
24.
To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the player put the club in default of payment of the
amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and granted the club a 10-day
deadline to cure such breach of contract.
25.
Accordingly, the Single Judge confirmed that the club had delayed a due payment without a prima
facia contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the Regulations was
met in the case at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14414
26.
The Single Judge further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has
competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above and bearing in mind that
this is the first offense by the club within the last two years, the Single Judge decided to impose a
warning on the club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
d. Costs
27.
The 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 Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
28.
Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the 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.
29.
Lastly, the Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14414
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Abdallah Ra'edMahmoud AI Fakhori, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Ain FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 7,844 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 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 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.
8.
A warning (art. 12 bis of the Regulations) is imposed on the Respondent.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14414
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. 10