Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-372
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 May 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Isaac Amoah
COMPOSITION:
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Isaac Amoah, Ghana
Represented by Vintels Sports Agency
RESPONDENT:
SM Sanga Balende, Congo DR
Page 2 of 6
REF FPSD-372
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On an unspecified date, the player Isaac Amoah (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the
Congolese club, SM Sanga Balende (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid for 3 sporting seasons, starting on 28
March 2018.
2. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the sporting
seasons in Congo DR start on 1 August and end on 31 May of the following year.
3. In accordance with clause 5.1 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player a signon fee of USD 10,000; as well as a monthly salary of USD 1,000, which was payable on the
last day of every month.
4. By means of several Whatsapp messages exchanged on 29 April 2018 between the player´s
representative, Mr Vicent Okantah, and Mr Vincent Ngoyi, allegedly acting on behalf of the
club, the said parties allegedly agreed that the club would pay to the player the sign-on fee
in the amount of USD 10,000, which was outstanding, as well as USD 5,000 as “agent fees”.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
5.
On 17 November 2020, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA. A brief
summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
The claim of the Claimant
6.
In his claim, the Claimant explained that the club never proceeded with the full payment of
the sign-on fee, remaining the amount of USD 2,500 unpaid. In addition, the Claimant
refers to the Whatsapp messages exchanged with the club on 29 April 2018, whereby the
club allegedly acknowledged owing the amount of EUR 5,000 as agent fees. In this context,
the Claimant argued that, despite having contacted the club to remedy the default, the
Respondent has not proceeded with the payment of the requested amounts.
7.
In his request for relief, the player requested to be awarded outstanding remuneration in
the amount of USD 7,500, plus interests on the amount of USD 2,500, “within thirty days
of the order of the FIFA DRC”, broken down by the player as follows:
USD 2,500 corresponding to the unpaid part of the sign-on fee;
USD 5,000 as agent fees.
Page 3 of 6
REF FPSD-372
b.
Position of the Respondent
8.
Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
9.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter also referred to as DRC 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 17 November 2020 and submitted
for decision on 17 November 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the
January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
10.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns
an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Ghanaian player
and a Congolese club.
11.
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 (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 November 2020, the October 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
12.
The DRC judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC judge stressed
the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
13.
In this respect, the DRC judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in the TMS.
Page 4 of 6
REF FPSD-372
c.
14.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established,
the DRC judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC judge started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he 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
15.
First of all, the DRC judge wished to emphasize that clause 5.1 of the contract states that
the player is entitled to USD 10,000 as sign-on fee; however, the said clause does not specify
any due date for its payment. In view of the aforesaid –continued the DRC judge–, given
that the consideration of the said payment is a sign-on fee, it is to be presumed that the
said amount was payable on the date on which the parties entered into the contract.
However, insofar the said date is also unknown, the DRC judge determined that the said
amount was payable, the latest, on 28 March 2018, i.e. on the date on which the
employment relationship started.
16.
The above being said, the DRC judge underscored that one could also argue that the due
date for the said payment was on 29 April 2018, i.e. date on which the club allegedly
acknowledged owing the sign-on bonus to the player. In this regard, the DRC judge
concluded that, insofar the documentary evidence provided by the player in support of his
allegations that the club agreed to pay the sign-on bonus and the agent fees by means of
the Whatsapp messages allegedly exchanged with the club on 29 April 2018, remained
uncontested, given that the club failed to reply to the claim, the allegations of the Claimant
are to be deemed as uncontested facts.
17.
Nevertheless, stressed the DRC judge, in any which way, should it be considered that the
amounts were payable by 28 March or 29 April 2018, it is a matter of fact that the player
only lodged his claim before FIFA on 17 November 2020, i.e. more than 2 years after any
of the aforesaid dates. Hence, the player´s request regarding the allegedly unpaid part of
the sign-on fee is inadmissible ex. art. 25.5 RSTP.
18.
Concerning the player´s request for agent fees, the DRC judge noted that the said request
found no contractual basis, insofar the only basis whereupon the Claimant is constructing
his request are the Whatsapp messages allegedly exchanged between the parties on 29
April 2018. Nevertheless, wished to emphasize the DRC judge, there is no need to enter
into an analysis of the authenticity of the Whatsapp messages allegedly exchanged between
the parties on 29 April 2018 nor into an analysis of the prescription of the player´s request
regarding the agent fees, since the beneficiary of the said fees is not the player but the
player´s agent. In this respect, the DRC judge referred to art. 22 of the RSTP (October 2020
edition), in accordance with which FIFA is not competent to adjudicate on disputes arisen
between a player´s agent and a club.
Page 5 of 6
REF FPSD-372
ii. Consequences
19.
Having stated the above, the members of the DRC judge concluded that the claim of the
Claimant is entirely inadmissible, ex. arts. 25.5 and 22 of the Regulations.
IV. DECISION OF THE Dispute Resolution Chamber judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Isaac Amoah, is inadmissible.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the DRC judge:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 6 of 6