Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3432
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 February 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Omar Hani
Ismael Alzedieh
BY:
DE WEGER Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
AWAD ALTHEBITY Khalid (Saudi Arabia), member
SARTORI Stefano (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
Omar Hani Ismael Alzedieh, Jordan
Represented by Mr Antoine Semeria
RESPONDENT:
Apoel Nicosia, Cyprus
Page 2
REF FPSD-3432
I.
Facts of the case
1.
Mr. Omar Hani Ismail Alzebdieh (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player) is a professional
footballer from Jordan.
2.
Apoel Nicosia (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) is a club headquartered in Cyprus and
affiliated to the Cyprus Football Association (CFA).
3.
The player and the club signed a number of contracts between them, which are detailed in
continuation.
Employment contract and standard player contract
4.
On 15 July 2019, the parties signed an employment contract valid from the date of signing
until 31 May 2022 (hereinafter: the contract).
5.
The parties dispute which version of the contract was indeed signed.
6.
According to the contract filed by the player, the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant as
follows:
o EUR 12,550 gross (EUR 10,910 net) per month from 30 July 2019 until 31 May
2020 (11 salaries);
o EUR 13,700 gross (EUR 11,667 net) per month from 30 July 2020 until 31 May
2021 (11 salaries);
o EUR 15,750 gross (EUR 13,334 net) per month from 30 July until 31 May 2022 (11
salaries).
7.
According to the contract uploaded in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and filed by the
club, the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant as follows:
o EUR 12,550 gross (EUR 10,910 net) per month from 30 July 2019 until 31 May
2020 (11 salaries);
o EUR 13,700 gross (EUR 11,667 net) per month from 30 June 2020 until 31 May
2021 (12 salaries);
o EUR 15,750 gross (EUR 13,334 net) per month from 30 June until 31 May 2022
(12 salaries).
8.
Clause 2.1 of the contract reads as follows: “The present contract is regulated by the
provisions of the standard employment contract as these have been agreed between the
Cyprus Football Association (CFA) and the Cyprus Footballers’ Union (CFU) and as these
provisions have been codified in Annex 1 of the CFA Registration and Transfer Player
Regulations“.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3432
9.
The version of the contract submitted by the player does not have the standard player
contract, while the version uploaded to TMS and filed by the player is accompanied by such
standard player contract.
10. Article 13 of the standard player contract states that “Any employment dispute between the
Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved according to the applicable regulations of the CFA”.
First supplementary agreement
11. On the same date, 15 July 2019, the parties signed an additional agreement, according to
which the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant a sign on fee of EUR 120,000 payable as
detailed in continuation (hereinafter: the supplementary agreement). The relevant clause
states that such amount was payable “in addition to the contract of employment”:
o
o
o
o
EUR 30,000 net by 15 August 2019;
EUR 30,000 net by 31 December 2019;
EUR 30,000 net by 28 February 2020;
EUR 30,000 net by 30 April 2020.
12. The “recitals” section of the supplementary agreement inter alia reads as follows:
“Whereas:
A. The “PLAYER” is a professional football player and he is ready and willing to offer his
services as professional football player for the football team of the “Club”;
B. The parties entered into an employment agreement dated 15th July 2019 which is valid
from 15th July 2019 and expiration date on 31st may 2022 with option of renew as per
clause 1.4 of the employment agreement”.
13. Under clause 3 of the supplementary agreement the player was entitled to EUR 1,250 for
accommodation and transport per month in accordance with the supplementary agreement,
“starting from 31st August 2019”.
14. Clause 4 of the supplementary agreement reads as follows: “In case any dispute arises
between the parties, jurisdiction shall have the judicial bodies of the Cyprus Football
Association and/or the dispute resolution Chamber of FIFA and/or CAS. Breach have any of
the clauses of this agreement shall give the right to the innocent party to claim damages from
the other.”
Second supplementary agreement
15. On 30 July 2020, the parties allegedly signed a second supplementary agreement. The club
disputes that the second settlement agreement was signed.
Page 4
REF FPSD-3432
16. The second supplementary agreement reads as follows:
“WHEREAS
A.
The "PLAYER" is a professional football player and he is ready and willing to offer
his services as a professional football player for the football team of the "Club",
B.
The parties entered into an employment agreement dated 15th July 2019 which is
valid from 15th July 2019 and expiration date on 31st May 2022 with option of renewal
as per clause 1.4 of the employment agreement.
C. The parties agree that the previous supplementary contract dated 15th July 2019 is
cancelled and its cancellation is effected upon signing the present agreement.
D. The employment agreement is the CFA standard pre-printed form employment contract,
which is mandatory for the Player's registration with the CFA.
By virtue of this agreement. the parties wish to further agree the following:
1.
The Club shall pay to the Player, for the football season 2020-2021 as long as he
maintains in force a valid employment agreement with the Club, a sum of €94.227 net, in
addition to the contract of employment dated 15th July 2019, payable by 4 instalments as
follows:
•
€23.557 net by 31st October 2020
•
€23.557 net by 31st December 2020
•
€23.557 net by 28th February 2021
•
€23.557 net by 30th May 2021
2.
The Player as long as he maintains in force a valid employment agreement with the
Club is entitled to the bonuses according the Internal Regulations of the Club as those are
approved by the board of directors of the Club.
3.
The Club shall pay to the Player, as long as he maintains a valid employment
agreement with the Club, a monthly allowance of €1.250 for accommodation and
travelling expenses, which shall be payable at the end of each month, starting from 31st
July 2020.
4.
In case any dispute arises between the parties, jurisdiction shall have the judicial
bodies of the Cyprus Football Association and/or the Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA
and/or CAS. Breach of any of the clauses of this agreement shall give the right to the
innocent party to claim damages from the other”.
Settlement agreement
Page 5
REF FPSD-3432
17. On 30 July 2020, the parties signed a settlement agreement. This is not disputed by the
parties. The settlement agreement reads as follows:
“BECAUSE the Player is being employed by the Club by virtue of the employment
agreement dated 15th July 2019 AND
BECAUSE both Parties agree and recognise the serious financial consequences on club
revenues as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the CFA competitions' suspension
since March 2019 and their consecutive permanent termination AND
BECAUSE the Parties wish to reach an amicable settlement concerning all payments which
are or might be due to the Player today as well as those to which the Player will be entitled
until the end of season 2019-20 (until and including 31/05/2020)
THEY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.
The preamble of the present agreement constitutes an integrated part of it.
2.
The Player agrees to waive any amount due to him by the Club and agrees to sign
a final settlement agreement concerning his services for the CFA season 2019-20.
3.
The CFA season 2019-20 runs from the 1st of June 2019 until the 31st of May
2020. The present agreement covers all and every kind of payments agreed to be made to
the Player from the 1st of June 2019 until, and including, the 31st of May 2020.
4.
By signing the present agreement, the Club does not waive or reject any rights
vested on it by virtue of the national legislation concerning its right not to pay its Player's
any salaries for the period from the 15th of March 2020 until the 31st of May 2020.
5.
The present agreement is signed as a full and final settlement between the Parties
concerning the Player's remuneration for the whole of season 2019-20, over and above all
amounts paid until today to the Player, and the Parties have no further demands and/or
claims and/or obligations against each other for season 2019-20”.
18. On 2 September 2020, the player was loaned from the club to the Cypriot club, Olympiacos
Nicosia, but the Respondent undertook to continue paying the player’s wages. Such fact is
not disputed by the parties.
19. On an unspecified date, the Claimant admits that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, he
accepted a 15% salary reduction for the 2020/2021 season and that his salary was therefore
EUR 11,667 net instead of EUR 12,728. These facts and figures are not disputed by the
parties.
Page 6
REF FPSD-3432
20. On 20 July 2021, the Claimant sent a default notice for the amount of EUR 120,061 to the
Respondent, granting it 15 days to comply with its financial obligations. Said amount was
broken down as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
EUR 94,227 as sign on fee;
EUR 11,667 as salary of February;
EUR 1,250 as allowance of February;
EUR 11,667 as salary of June;
EUR 1,250 as allowance of June
21. On 28 July 2021, the Respondent replied to the default notice stating that it had not paid for
COVID-19 reasons and proposing to settle its debts with the Claimant for a total amount of
EUR 30,000.
22. On 2 August 2021, the player rejected the club’s offer.
23. On 6 August 2021, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract citing just cause for
outstanding salaries.
24. On 1 September 2021, the Claimant signed a contract with Club de Gabala, Azerbaijan valid
until 30 June 2022 for a total amount of USD 50,000 (USD 4,000 for 10 months from
September, USD 5,000 as a sign on fee and USD 5,000 in May 2022).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
25. On 27 August 2021, 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
26. The Claimant filed the claim at hand for outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract.
27. The Claimant requested that the Respondent be ordered to pay the following amounts:
EUR 120,061 as unpaid sign on fee (EUR 94,227) and outstanding salaries for February and
June 2021;
EUR 1,250 as accommodation and transport costs for 2 months;
EUR 174,552 as compensation for breach of contract;
5% interest p.a. on the above amounts as from 45 days following the notification of the
decision.
Page 7
REF FPSD-3432
28. In support of his claim, the Claimant submits that on 15 July 2019, the parties signed an
employment contract according to which the Respondent agreed to pay him as follows:
o EUR 10,910 from 30 July 2019 until 31 May 2020;
o EUR 12,728 from 30 July 2020 until 31 May 2021;
o EUR 14,546 from 30 July 2021 until 31 May 2022.
29. The Claimant adds that on the same day as the contract (15 July 2019), the parties signed an
additional agreement, according to which the Respondent agreed to pay him a sign on fee
of EUR 120,000 payable as follows:
o EUR 30,000 net by 15 August 2019;
o EUR 30,000 net by 31 December 2019;
o EUR 30,000 net by 28 February 2020;
o EUR 30,000 net by 30 April 2020.
30. Additionally, the Claimant submits that he was entitled to EUR 1,250 for accommodation and
transport per month.
31. According to the Claimant, sign on fee in the amount of EUR 120,000 was never paid by the
Respondent.
32. Additionally, the Claimant submits that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, he accepted
a 15% salary reduction for the 2020/2021 season and that his salary was therefore EUR
11,667 net instead of EUR 12,728.
33. Therefore according to the Claimant, on 30 July 2020, the parties signed the settlement
agreement according to which he agreed to waive any amount due to him by the Respondent
for March to May 2020.
34. In addition to the above reduction, the Claimant submits that on the same day (30 July 2020),
the parties signed a supplementary agreement for the 2020/2021 season according to which
he accepted a reduction in the sign on fee to EUR 94,227 as follows:
o EUR 23,557 by 31 October 2020;
o EUR 23,557 by 31 December 2020;
o EUR 23,557 by 28 February 2021;
o EUR 23,557 by 30 May 2021.
35. The Claimant adds that the Respondent failed to pay his sign on fee in the amount of EUR
94,227, his salaries February 2021, June 2021 and his accommodation and transport costs in
the amount of EUR 1,250 each.
36. The Claimant also states that his May 2021 salary was paid in July 2021 (2 months later).
37. As a result of the above, the Claimant states that he sent a default notice to the Respondent
on 20 July 2021 requesting payment of the total sum of EUR 120,061 within 15 days but that
Page 8
REF FPSD-3432
the Respondent in response attempted to settle its outstanding debts by proposing to pay
him EUR 30,000, which offer he rejected.
38. In view of the above, the Claimant submits that on 6 August 2021, he terminated the contract
with just cause and that he is as a result entitled to EUR 120,061 corresponding to
outstanding salaries for February and June 2021 and accommodation/ transport costs in the
amount EUR 1,250.
39. Additionally, the Claimant also submits that as a result of the above breaches, he is entitled
to compensation in the amount of EUR 174,552 (July 2021 to May 2022).
40. He also finally requests to be awarded 5% interest p.a. on the outstanding amounts as of the
due dates until the effective date of payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
41. According to the Respondent, FIFA is not competent to hear the current claim because the
contract clearly states that in case of a dispute, it would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the NDRC of the Cyprus Football Association (CFA).
42. The Respondent adds that the Claimant did not submit the standard contract signed by the
parties which clearly states under article 13 that the NDRC of the CFA would be competent
in case of a dispute and that said clause is clear and leaves no room for confusion.
43. In continuation, the Respondent submits that the NDRC of the CFA meets the requirements
of parity and that the current regulations are as a result of an agreement between the CFA
and the Cyprus Footballers’ Union (PASP).
44. In conclusion, the Respondent submits that the NDRC of the CFA meets the requirements
under the FIFA circular 1010 and article 22 (b) of the FIFA RSTP and that therefore FIFA is not
competent to hear the current claim.
45. As to the merits, the Respondent argued as follows:
“APOEL rejects the allegation that the alleged agreement for an additional amount of
€120,000 was signed between the Parties. Such an agreement was never signed and APOEL
never made any payments based on such an agreement.
(…) The Club also rejects the Player’s allegation for the signing of the supplementary
agreement dated 30/07/2020. The Club never signed that agreement. And how could it have
signed it from the moment that, as the Player himself admits, on the same day, i.e.
30/07/2020, a settlement agreement was signed between the Parties? With which it was
agreed that there were no due payables to the Player for season 2019-20?
Page 9
REF FPSD-3432
48. For all reasons stated above, we are requesting the rejection of the present claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
46. 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 27 August 2021 and submitted for decision
on 16 February 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
47. 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 (August 2021 edition, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Jordanian player and a Cypriot club.
48. The Chamber noted that the club has challenged the competence of FIFA to her the dispute
at hand. In this respect, the Chamber deemed first of all which version of the contract should
be considered for the purposes of the proceeding insofar as the parties disagree as to which
version of the contract applies. Additionally, the amounts in the contract dated 15 July 2019
submitted by the Claimant differ from the version submitted by the Respondent, which is also
the version uploaded in TMS. The Chamber recalled the principles regarding burden of proof
and taking of evidence established under art. 13 par. 4 and 5 of the Procedural Rules in this
respect.
49. As a result, decided to consider the contract version fully signed by both parties and 2
witnesses that was uploaded in TMS under the relevant transfer (TMS 242143), which
matches the one filed by the club. The Chamber noted that such version is additionally more
to the benefit of the player under its economic perspective.
50. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with 22 par.
1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle,
competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an
international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute
to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national
level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any
Page 10
REF FPSD-3432
such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective
bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal
must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National
Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1
January 2008.
51. The club has challenged the competence of FIFA to hear the present dispute on the basis of
article 13 of the standard employment contract signed with the player, and arguing that the
National Dispute Resolution Chamber established under the auspices of the CFA (hereinafter:
NRDC of Cyprus) was competent.
52. However, the DRC noted that the settlement agreement signed by the parties and confirmed
by the club possesses no jurisdiction clause. The settlement agreement is umbilically
connected to the contract and to the player’s status at the club. It follows therefore, in the
DRC’s view, that the jurisdiction clause in the contract and the jurisdiction clauses in
settlement agreement can be deemed contradicting and therefore, there is no clear and
exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the NDRC of Cyprus.
53. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite for establishing
the competence of a NDRC was not met, and therefore, it established that the Respondent’s
objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and
that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
54. This alone would be sufficient to confirm that FIFA is competent to hear the claim. In any
event and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to outline that FIFA is
competent also for the NDRC of Cyprus does not meet the criteria set out in FIFA Circular no.
1010. The Chamber namely referred to principle of equal representation of players and clubs
and underlined that this principle is one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in
order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this
prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA
Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the
aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following
members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy
chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three
and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’
associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a
selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives
(…).” In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have
equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party
shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the
chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a
Page 11
REF FPSD-3432
predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal
influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list”.
55. In accordance with the NDRC of Cyprus’ regulations on file and in particular with article
22.4.3 (Composition and operation of Appeal Committee and DRC), “The two members of
the Appeal Committee and DRC respectively will be elected from the Board of Directors of
CFA and two members of the Appeal Committee and DRC respectively will be elected by the
Pancyprian Football Players' Association with a procedure that will be decided in common.
The election procedure must be approved by the CFA. The four elected members of both the
Appeal Committee and the DRC respectively will have to elect within 15 days, the ViceChairman of the Appeal Committee and DRC respectively. Accordingly, the four members will
elect the Chairman of the Appeal Committee and the DRC respectively”.
56. The DRC found unclear from the provided regulations how the Board of Directors of the CFA
are elected. It is also not clear if there is equal representation for clubs and players as it appears
that the other 2 members are elected by the Players’ Association. There is no mention of club
representation.
57. Additionally, under article 22.4.4, “The members elected by the Pancyprian Football Players'
Association should be reported promptly to the CFA for approval of their appointment”.
58. With the above in mind, it appears that the members elected by the Pancyprian Football
Players’ Association have to be approved by the CFA, which indicates that the players do not
have an independent choice of representation since it is subject to approval by the CFA board
of directors.
59. On the basis of all the foregoing considerations, the DRC confirmed it is competent to hear
the claim at hand and that the Respondent’s objection is to be set aside.
60. 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 27 August 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
61. 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).
Page 12
REF FPSD-3432
c. Merits of the dispute
62. 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
63. 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 supplementary agreements
were signed by the parties, and if the player had just cause to terminate the contract.
64. The Claimant submits that he terminated the contract with just cause due to outstanding
salaries and that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract.
65. On the hand, the Respondent rejects the allegation that the supplementary agreement for an
additional amount of EUR 120,000 was signed between the parties. The Respondent also
denies that the parties signed the supplementary agreement dated 30 July 2020.
66. 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).
67. The Chamber / 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
between the parties. The Chamber thus proceeded to examine if the Respondent met its
burden of proof.
68. The specimen of the supplementary agreements on file provided by the player bear the club’s
signature and stamp. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, for a
layman, such contract appears to have been properly executed and the DRC saw no reason,
no evidence nor any convincing argumentation from the club’s side to set aside such
contracts. It additionally noted and the signature in the second supplementary agreement
matches that of the club found in his statement of defence, which further denotes
authenticity of the documentation submitted by the Claimant.
Page 13
REF FPSD-3432
69. More in particular, on comparison of the signatures contained in the contract in TMS and the
documents submitted by the Claimant, the DRC observed also that regarding the First
Supplementary agreement dated 15 July 2019, the signature of the club included therein
appears to be the same as the one in the contract uploaded in TMS.
70. Moreover, the DRC referred to the fact that on 20 July 2021 the Claimant sent a default
notice to the Respondent (attaching all agreements signed by the parties) and requesting
outstanding amounts of EUR 120,061 and that the Respondent replied on 28 July 2021
acknowledging that it had debts to the Claimant, proposing to settle for the amount of EUR
30,000. The Respondent at the time did not contest the amounts requested by the Claimant
or the documents that he based his request on.
71. With the above in mind, the DTR was firm to conclude that the parties indeed signed the
supplementary agreements as indicated by the Claimant. What remains to be determined is
whether the player had just cause to terminate the contract and the consequences thereof,
based on the criteria of art. 14bis of the Regulations.
72. The player put the club in default of payment of his remuneration on 20 July 2021, regarding
the sign-on fee and his salaries and allowances of February and June, to no avail. The case
meets the criteria of art. 14bis of the Regulations therefore in the Chamber’s unanimous
opinion. It follows that the player had just cause to terminate the contract and the club shall
bear the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
73. 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.
74. 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 EUR 120,062,
broken down as follows:
-
Sign on fee as per the second supplementary agreement: EUR 94,228 net;
Accommodation and travel expenses as per the second supplementary: EUR 2,500;
February 2021 salary: EUR 11,667 net;
June 2021 salary: EUR 11,667 net.
75. 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. For the sake of
completeness, the Chamber noted that the parties do not dispute that the player accepted a
15% salary reduction for the 2020/2021 season and that his salary was therefore EUR 11,667
net instead of EUR 12,728. While this amount does not appear to be mathematically correct,
it has not been challenged by the club and thus is tacitly accepted.
Page 14
REF FPSD-3432
76. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s (particular) 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 45 days after the
notification of the decision until the date of effective payment.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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 EUR 133,340 (i.e. the residual value of the contract calculated as from 30
July 2021 until 31 May 2022) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
81. 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.
Page 15
REF FPSD-3432
82. Indeed, the player found employment with Club de Gabala. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR 40,900 (converted from
USD 46,000) during the overlapping period between the contract prematurely terminated
and the player’s new contract. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated
his damages in the total amount of EUR 40,900.
83. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination took
place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that the
player shall receive additional compensation.
84. The DRC established the player’s average salary on the basis of the following calculations:
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Sign-on fee
Amount (EUR)
10,910.00
11,667.00
13,334.00
94,227.00
Months
11
12
12
n/a
Total
Contract
length
Average
Total (EUR)
120,010.00
140,004.00
160,008.00
94,227.00
514,249.00
35 months
14,692.83
85. In this respect, the DRC decided that in principle the player could be awarded the amount of
additional compensation of EUR 44,078, i.e. three times his monthly remuneration. However,
the DRC confirmed that on the basis of the unequivocal wording of art. 17 of the Regulations,
the total amount of compensation (including any additional compensation) cannot exceed
the residual value of the (prematurely) terminated contract. As such, the additional
compensation granted to the player was EUR 40,900.
86. 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 EUR 133,340
to the player (i.e. EUR 133,340 minus EUR 40,900 plus EUR 40,900), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the
present matter.
87. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s (particular) 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 45 days after the notification of the decision until
the date of effective payment.
Page 16
REF FPSD-3432
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
88. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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.
89. 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.
90. 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
91. 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.
92. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 17
REF FPSD-3432
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Omar Hani Ismael Alzedieh, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Apoel Nicosia, has to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 120,062 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 April 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 133,340 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interestp.a. as from 7 April 2022 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24bis 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 the ban shall
be of 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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 18
REF FPSD-3432
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 19