Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16563
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Eskander
Samuel Alwadi Kori
BY:
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Eskander Samuel Alwadi Kori, Sudan
Represented by Ammar Asfour
RESPONDENT:
Jamus Football club, South Sudan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16563
I. Parties
1.
2.
The parties to this dispute are:
-
The Sudanese player Eskander Samuel Alwadi Kori (hereinafter: the Claimant or Player);
and
-
the South Sudanese club Jamus Football club (hereinafter: the Respondent or Club).
The Claimant and the Respondent are hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
3.
On 13 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
4.
In light of the evidence presented, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Single Judge) did not consider the events alleged by the Claimant to have
occurred as established facts, but instead as part of the Claimant’s allegations, which are
detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
5.
According to the Claimant, on 23 April 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract), valid as from 18 July 2024 until 18
October 2025, which the Respondent unilaterally terminated without just cause.
6.
In support of his position, the Claimant submitted a copy of the Contract which does not
bear the signatures of the parties. The Claimant stated that the Respondent refused to give
him a signed copy of the Contract.
7.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant:
“1. The total value of the contract is 25000$ (In words) Twenty five THOUSAND DOLLAR.
2. For the 2024-2025 season, the player will receive 25000$ Upon signing the contract and 250$
A monthly wages.”
8.
The Claimant stated that on the signing of the Contract he received USD 3,000 from the
Respondent.
9.
The Claimant also provided some photos which, according to him, proved the contractual
relationship between the parties.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16563
10. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“We ask FIFA to:
First: Oblige the club to pay $22,000 (twenty-two thousand US dollars) which it was supposed to
pay when signing the contract and did not complete it to the player.
Second: Oblige the defendant to pay an amount of three thousand seven hundred and fifty US
dollars for the player's full wages for the entire contract period.
Third: Oblige the club to pay the value of the travel ticket that the player will return to his country
in the amount of one thousand five hundred US dollars.
Fourth: Punish the club disciplinary because it behaved unsportsmanlike when it refused to give
the player a signed copy of his contract.
Fifth: Obligating the club to pay an amount of five thousand US dollars as compensation for the
damage and harm suffered by the player as a result of the club’s failure to abide by the terms
of the contract.”
b. Position of the Respondent
11. Despite of being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16563
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Single Judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 13
October 2024 and submitted for decision on 29 January 2025. Taking into account the
wording of art. 31 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.
13. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition), he is competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Sudanese player and a South Sudanese club.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), the
January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. 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 he 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
16. 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
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16563
17. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the Claimant alleged that the parties had concluded an employment contract that was
ultimately terminated by the Respondent without just cause.
18. The Single Judge also noted that the claim remained uncontested by the Respondent, and
therefore established that the decision will be made based on the arguments and evidence
on file (cf., art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
19. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that its task was to determine whether a
contractual relationship existed between the parties, and whether the Respondent
breached such contract.
20. In doing so, the Single Judge started by recalling its well-established jurisprudence which
dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding,
apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the
essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their
role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the
employer to the employee.
21. With the above in mind, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant could not produce a fully
executed version of the Contract allegedly signed between the parties. By the same token,
no contract between the parties had been uploaded into TMS, nor had the Claimant been
registered with the Respondent.
22. Nonetheless, the Single Judge also noted that, according to the Claimant, an agreement
between two parties may be proven by means other than presenting the Contract signed
by both parties. In this regard, the Single Judge further recall that, as argued by the
Claimant, it is also a well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber that the actual
signature of the contract is not the sole element to determine whether there was an
existing contractual obligation between the parties. Instead, the validity and enforcement
of the contract should be established on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of all
the facts and actions taken by the parties within the context of their alleged relationship.
23. The above having been established, the Single Judge referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, and underscored that it was for the Claimant to prove the existence of a
valid and binding employment contract from which he is not claiming outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
24. The Single Judge then proceeded to the analysis as to whether, considering that no signed
contract had been presented, from the evidence submitted by the Claimant it could be
inferred that a valid and binding employment contract had been concluded with the
Respondent.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16563
25. After having carefully analysed the evidence on file, the Single Judge noted that it consisted
of photos of the Claimant training with the Respondent, a flight ticket from Cairo, Egypt to
Juba, South Sudan and the visa issued by the Republic of South Sudan.
26. The Single Judge highlighted that the in the photos submitted by the Claimant, he appeared
on a field, apparently wearing the Respondent's kit. However, the Single Judge emphasised
that it could not be confirmed whether any of the photos were taken during an official
match. Additionally, the Single Judge emphasised that these photos had limited probative
value in establishing the contractual basis of any employment relationship between the
parties.
27. The Single Judge further analysed the flight ticket and highlighted that, while it indeed
showed a departure to South Sudan, the Claimant had failed to prove that the ticket had
been issued by or was in any way connected with the Respondent.
28. Similarly, the Single Judge examined the visa issued by the Republic of South Sudan and
noted that, while it evidenced the Claimant’s entry into the country, it did not establish the
existence of a contractual relationship between the parties nor any link between the
Respondent and the Claimant’s travel or presence in South Sudan.
29. In addition, the Single Judge noted that the Player failed to produce any communication
undertaken between the parties, or any evidence corroborating the claim that the
Respondent had agreed to pay any remuneration to the Claimant or that the Respondent
had actually made any payment to the Claimant at any point in time.
30. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that the evidence submitted by the Claimant
did not constitute sufficient proof that an agreement for the Respondent to pay the
Claimant USD 25,000 (or any amount) had been concluded. As a consequence, the Single
Judge concluded that the Claimant failed to prove that a valid and binding contract had
been concluded between the parties.
31. Taking all of the above into account and referring to 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, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant did not meet his
burden of proof in support of his claim and arguments, and therefore decided that the
claim be rejected in its entirety.
d. Costs
32. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16563
33. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the ingle 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.
34. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16563
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Eskander Samuel Alwadi Kori, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16563
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. 10