Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17224
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the
player Akinkunmi Ayobami Amoo
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Akinkunmi Ayobami Amoo, Nigeria
Represented by Donny Buisman
RESPONDENT:
Omonoia FC, Cyprus
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17224
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 September 2023, the Nigerian player Akinkunmi Ayobami Amoo (hereinafter, the
Player or the Claimant) and the Cypriot club Omonoia FC (hereinafter, the Respondent or the
Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 12
September 2023 until 31 May 2026, as well as a “Standard Employment Contract”, which is
attached to the Contract, in order for the Player to be validly registered with the Cyprus
Football Association (CFA).
2.
Pursuant to Clause 1 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) the following fixed remuneration:
o From 12 September 2023 to 31 May 2024, a monthly remuneration of EUR 5,000 net,
payable on the last day of each month (i.e., total of EUR 45,000 net);
o From 1 June 2024 to 31 May 2025, a monthly remuneration of EUR 5,000 net, payable
in ten instalments from 31 August 2024 until 31 May 2025 on the last day of each
month (i.e., total of EUR 50,000 net); and
o From 25 August 2025 to 31 May 2026, a monthly remuneration of EUR 5,000 net,
payable in ten instalments from 31 August 2025 until 31 May 2026 payable on the
last day of each month (i.e., total of EUR 45,000 net).
3.
In addition, pursuant to Clause 1.4.1 of the Contract, the Player was also entitled to a
housing allowance of EUR 7,000 net per year and to, inter alia, the following bonus:
“1.5.2. 3,000 NET per participation of the Player as a substitute at all the official games (a
substitution is any appearance of the player who enters as a substitute and exceeds 20’
minutes of participation) (Championship, Cup and European), payable at the end of the
season, for each season separately.”
4.
Clause 2 of the Contract provides, inter alia, as follows:
“2.1 The present Contract is regulated by the provisions of the Standard Employment
Contract, as these have been agreed by the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) and the Cyprus
Footballers’ Union (PASP) and as these provisions have been codified in Annex 1 of the CFA
Registration and Transfer of Players Regulations.
2.2 The terms of the Standard Employment Contract constitute an integral part of the
present Contract having full and direct implementation and shall apply in addition to this
Employment Contract.
2.3 In case of conflict, the terms of the present Contract shall take precedence over the terms
of the Standard Employment Contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17224
(…)
2.7 Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall be fall [sic] and
considered under the jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Cyprus
Football Association (CFA).
2.8 The Parties recognize that along the standard employment contract to be submitted
before the CFA the Club claims the jurisdiction clause cannot be amended although it is the
right of the Player to seek redress before FIFA judicial bodies in relation to any and all of his
contracts/agreements in its widest terms, concluded between the Player and the Club.”
5.
On its part, Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract provides the following:
“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.”
6.
On 13 September 2023, the Club’s Deputy Chairperson sent a WhatsApp message to the
Club’s sporting director, informing him that the Player had Hepatitis B. In reply, the Club’s
sporting director stated that “Yes I’m with Isabella now. It’s very common and I had several of
players in Sweden with that. I will check with doctor here and Sweden.”
7.
On 20 November 2023, the Club sent a letter to the Ministry of Interior requesting a work
and residence permit for the Player, attaching a medical report and blood tests of the
Player. In its letter, the Club stressed the following:
“The reasons towards the approval of the permit are that in the blood analysis he did show
that he was found to be positive for Hepatitis B. After specialized blood tests which he also
performed were sent from the Cyprus chemistry to a chemistry in Greece and after a second
doctor’s opinion by Dr Konstantinos Kapodistrias the conclusion they made is that the virus
he has is not at the point where it can transmit the disease and neither change his lifestyle
(…)”.
8.
On 21 December 2023, the Ministry of Interior rejected the residence of work permit
requested by the Club for the Player and instructed the Club to advise the Player to depart
immediately from Cyprus.
9.
On 27 February 2024, the Club informed the Player that the Ministry of Interior had rejected
the Player’s work and residence permit in Cyprus, and that therefore the Contract was
terminated by operation of the law and/or due to impossibility of performance and/or due
to illegality.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17224
10. On 1 March 2024, the Player sent a letter to the Club objecting to the termination of the
Contract, and informing the latter that the fact that the Club allegedly was unable to obtain
a residence and work permit for the Player could not be attributed to him. In addition, the
Player informed the Club that it would leave Cyprus as per the Club’s indications, that it
was his intention to remain in Cyprus or to return in order to fulfil the Contract, and
requested the Club to take the necessary steps to ensure that he could return.
11. On 2 March 2024, the Player left Cyprus.
12. On 6 March 2024, in reply to the Player’s letter of 1 March 2024, the Club stressed that the
Player suffered from Hepatitis B, a medical condition that was not disclosed to the Club at
any stage prior to signing the Contract. The Club insisted on the terms of his previous letter
dated 27 February 2024, and informed the Player that the Parties would be exposed to
criminal liability and sanctions should the Contract persist. In addition, the Club informed
the Player that the Contract was not terminated due to his medical condition or because
he failed a medical exam, but by operation of the law.
13. On 30 April 2024, the Player replied to the Club, informing the latter that the Club had
terminated the Contract without just cause. In addition, the Player requested the payment
of EUR 153,000 net, from which EUR 18,000 net corresponded to outstanding
remuneration and EUR 135,000 net to compensation. The Player granted the Club a
deadline of five days to pay the aforementioned sum.
14. On 2 May 2024, the Club rejected the Player’s claim, and informed the latter that it
exhausted all possible and available measures in order to obtain a residence and work
permit, but that this was not possible because of the Player’s medical condition.
15. On 30 October 2024, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Chinese club
Shanghai JiaDing HuiLong FC, valid as from 1 November 2024 until 31 December 2027.
16. Pursuant to Clause 3 of this new employment contract, the Player is entitled to receive the
following fixed salary:
o From 1 November 2024 to 31 December 2025, a monthly remuneration of EUR 4,285
net (i.e., total of EUR 60,000 net); and
o From 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2027, a monthly remuneration of EUR 5,000
net, payable on the (i.e., total of EUR 120,000 net).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17224
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 25 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
18. The Player stressed that he was diagnosed with Hepatitis B at birth and that, fortunately,
this medical condition has not hindered his ability to perform his footballing activity in any
way. In this regard, the Player sustained having played as a professional football player for
multiple European clubs before joining the Respondent, without never been confronted by
any of his previous clubs to disclose his medical condition.
19. According to the Player, the present case revolves around the termination of the Contract
due to the Club’s inability to obtain a residence and work permit. In this regard, the Player
asserted that the validity of a contract may not be made subject to a successful medical
examination and/or the grant of a work permit. In addition, the Player contended that the
Club should have taken all the reasonable measures in order to obtain a residence and
work permit for him prior to the signature of the Contract.
20. Based on the above, the Player argued that the Club terminated the Contract without just
cause on 27 February 2024. Moreover, the Player asserted that the Club never informed
him about the letter from the Ministry of Interior dated 21 December 2023 before
terminating the Contract. The Player further contended that “[the Club] still used the Player’s
services in matches during the month of January 2024. Therefore, the Club was not at all in a
hurry to immediately arrange for the departure of the Player, as requested by the national
immigration authorities in the Rejection Letter. As such, the sudden termination on 27 February
is even more spiteful”.
21. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Player claimed being entitled to the following
amounts and concepts:
o EUR 4,666.67 net as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to the pro rata
calculation of the housing allowance for the 2023/2024 season, for the months of
September 2023 to February 2024.
o EUR 140,333,33 net as compensation for breach of contract, divided as follows:
o EUR 115,000 net, corresponding to the residual value of the Contract (i.e., 23
monthly salaries of EUR 5,000 net);
o EUR 16,333.33 net, corresponding to the pro rata calculation of the housing
allowance for the 2023/2024 season for the months of March to May 2024 (i.e.,
EUR 2,333.33 net) and the housing allowance for the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17224
season (i.e., EUR 7,000 net each); and
o EUR 9,000 net, corresponding to the bonus provided in Clause 1.5.2 of the
Contract, after having participated as a substitute for more than 20 minutes in
three matches.
22. The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of the foregoing, the Player respectfully requests FIFA to:
- Establish that the Club terminated the Contracts (the Standard Employment Contract and
the Employment Agreement) without just cause.
- Rule that the Club shall pay the following outstanding remuneration to the Player:
o That the Club has to pay the amount of EUR 4,666.67 net, corresponding to the pro
rata portion of the housing allowance of EUR 7,000 net per year for the 2023/2024
season, and to apply 5% interest per annum as from the moment the respective
payment became due, or at the latest as from the date of termination, until its effective
payment.
- Rule that the Club shall pay the following compensation to the Player for breach of
contract by the Club:
o The amount of EUR 115,000 net, corresponding to 23 monthly salaries of 5,000 euros,
and to apply 5% interest per annum, as from the date of termination, until its effective
payment.
o The amount of EUR 16,333.33 net, corresponding to the pro rata portion of the
housing allowance of EUR 7,000 net per year for the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026
season, and to apply 5% interest per annum as from the date of termination, until its
effective payment.
o The amount of EUR 9,000 net, corresponding to 3 contractual bonusses of EUR 3,000
net each regarding the participation of the Player as a substitute exceeding 20 minutes
of participation in official games of the Club in January 2024, and to apply 5% interest
per annum as from the moment the respective payment became due until its effective
payment.
- Rule that sporting sanctions will be imposed on the Club for the breach of contract within
the protected period, in accordance with the FIFA RSTP”.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17224
b. Position of the Respondent
23. In its reply, the Club initially objected to the jurisdiction of FIFA to hear the present dispute,
arguing that both the Contract and the Standard Employment Contract contain an
exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the
CFA (hereinafter, the NDRC). In addition, the Club argued that the subject matter of this
case is the legality of the termination of the Contract, which took place in accordance with
Cyprus law. Accordingly, the domestic tribunal is better suited to adjudicate the case under
the specific circumstances of the present case.
24. With respect to the substance of the dispute, the Club sustained that the Player, as a “third
country national”, needed a work and residence permit to reside and work in Cyprus.
According to the Club, one of the requirements of the government of Cyprus is that the
applicant must submit a blood test examination to ensure that the applicant does not
suffer from infectious or transmissible parasitic diseases. According to the Club, Hepatitis
B is included as an infectious or transmissible disease and, therefore, a residence and work
permit will not be granted. Moreover, the Club asserted that national law also foresees as
a criminal offence to employ a foreigner without the relevant permit.
25. The Club sustained having submitted three different applications to different instances for
the Player’s residence and work permit that were ultimately rejected because of the
Player’s medical condition.
26. The Club submitted that, under Cyprus law, the relevant application for work and residence
permit must be accompanied with the written contract of employment. Likewise, the Club
contended that it had no reason or duty to undertake blood tests, and that it only did so
because the national law requires it for “third country nationals”.
27. According to the Club, the termination of the Contract took place because the relevant
authorities in Cyprus did not approve a residence and work permit for the Player. In this
regard, “the reason for termination was the fact that the employment was rendered illegal by
operation of the law and nothing else”. The Club also denied having terminated the Contract
due to the Player’s medical condition or because if failed to pass a medical examination.
28. The Club argued that, after terminating the Contract, the Player left Cyprus with no
objections, and that if filed him during the month of January 2024 because it tried a third
attempt to obtain the residence and work permit for the Player.
29. Accordingly, the Club claimed that, under the circumstances of the present case, it acted
as a reasonable employer, in that it filed three applications before informing the Player
about the termination of the Contract in order to avoid criminal liability for both Parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17224
30. Lastly, the Club contended that “if someone had at least an ethical duty to disclose his medical
condition prior to employment, it was the Player and not the Club. We are not attributing and
bad faith or intention to the Player. However, he was the only one that was aware of his medical
condition, he knew or should have known that Hepatitis B is an infectious disease and we believe
that he had, at least, the moral duty to disclose it”.
31. The Club requested that the claim of the Player be rejected.
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
32. In his rejoinder, the Player insisted on the jurisdiction of FIFA based on Clause 2.8 of the
Contract, which refers to the possibility of the Parties to address their disputes to FIFA. In
addition, the Player contended that the NDRC of Cyprus has not been officially recognised
by FIFA.
33. As to the substance of the case, the Player reiterated that the Club terminated the Contract
due to its inability to obtain a residence and work permit, and not because of the Player’s
medical condition. In this regard, the Player submitted that, as confirmed by the Club in its
reply to the claim, the Club is well-aware of the procedure to obtain a work and residence
permit in Cyprus. As such, the Club was obliged to await the results of the blood test before
signing the Contract, since it was the only one aware of the formalities for obtaining such
permit. Accordingly, “if the Club wanted to be entirely sure that the Player would meet all the
criteria to obtain such permit, the Club should have waited to receive the results of the blood
test to sign the Contracts”.
34. The Player rejected that the Contract was terminated by operation of the law, and
reiterated that it was unilaterally terminated by the Club, otherwise it would imply that the
Player trained and participated in matches while the Contract was already terminated,
which is “contradictory to the reality”. The Player further insisted that the Club put him in
risk after being informed about the rejection of the application, and by continue allowing
him to train and having him participate in six matches during January 2024.
35. The Player also claimed that he was not aware of the procedures to obtain the relevant
permit in Cyprus, and therefore he should not suffer the consequences of the Club’s
negligence. In this regard, the Player contended that he had no obligation to inform the
Club of his medical condition, “which has never been a problem in any league in Europe where
he was previously engaged”.
36. The Player reiterated his request for relief.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17224
d. Final comments of the Respondent
37. In its final comments, the Club insisted on the jurisdiction of the NDRC of Cyprus, referring
to the arguments submitted with its reply to the claim.
38. The Club reiterated that, pursuant to national law, it is required to submit a signed contract
of employment along with the application in order to obtain a residence and work permit.
In this regard, “If the FIFA Commentary was followed to the letter in Cyprus, then it would not
be possible to employ Non-EU players to Cypriot clubs because the FIFA Commentary says that
you need to obtain advance approval before signing a contract”. The Club added that it follows
that if the application is not approved, the employment contract is illegal and, therefore,
terminated by operation of the law.
39. The Club insisted that, based on the circumstances of the present case, it had no option
but to terminate the Contract due to the fact that “its continuance was illegal”.
40. The Club reiterated having tried to obtain a permit before different instances, which shows
its intention to continue with the employment relationship. According to the Club, it acted
reasonably and in good faith and it is a victim of the government’s decision to refuse the
residence and work permit for the Player. The Club insisted that the Player had a moral
duty to inform the Club about his medical condition.
41. The Club reiterated its request for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
42. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 25 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 27 March 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.
43. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17224
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Nigerian player and a Cipriot club.
44. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the Club objected to the jurisdiction of FIFA’s
deciding bodies in favour of the NDRC of Cyprus, alleging that the latter is competent to
deal with any dispute arising from the employment relationship between the Parties in
accordance with Clause 2.7 of the Contract in conjunction with Clause 13 of the Standard
Employment Contract. Furthermore, the Club argued that the domestic tribunal is better
suited to adjudicate the case under the specific circumstances at stake, namely, the alleged
legality of the termination of the Contract, which allegedly took place in accordance with
national law.
45. The Chamber also noted that, for his part, the Player insisted on the jurisdiction of FIFA to
adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that Clause 2.8 of the Contract grants the Parties
the possibility to address their disputes to FIFA.
46. At this point, the Chamber reverted to the Transitional Measures established in art. 26 par.
1 lit. c) of the Regulations (editions of January 2025, October, June and February 2024),
according to which “Article 22 paragraph 1 b) and c) shall apply only to cases brought to FIFA
as from 1 January 2025. Any other cases shall be assessed according to the previous
regulations”.
47. Taking into account all the above, the DRC emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 par.
1 lit. b) of the Regulations (May 2023 edition), 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 such
arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective
bargaining agreement applicable to the parties. The independent national 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 National
Dispute Resolution Chamber Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January
2008.
48. In this context, the DRC pointed out that it should first be analysed whether the
employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the NDRC of Cyprus. The DRC recalled that, in line with its
well-established jurisprudence, any opt-out from FIFA’s jurisdiction must be made explicitly
and in writing, i.e., a clear and exclusive arbitration clause must be present in the contract
between the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17224
49. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber noted that the Parties concluded
two different contracts, namely, the Contract and the Standard Employment Contract,
which contained different provisions as to the jurisdiction.
50. The DRC observed that, in accordance with Clause 2.7 of the Contract and Clause 13 of the
Standard Employment Contract:
“2.7 Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall be fall [sic] and
considered under the jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Cyprus
Football Association (CFA)”.
“13. 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”.
51. At the same time, the Chamber also observed that, pursuant to Clause 2.8 of the Contract:
“2.8 The Parties recognize that along the standard employment contract to be submitted
before the CFA the Club claims the jurisdiction clause cannot be amended although it is the
right of the Player to seek redress before FIFA judicial bodies in relation to any and all of his
contracts/agreements in its widest terms, concluded between the Player and the Club”.
52. The DRC also took note that according to art. 2.3 of the Contract, “In case of conflict, the
terms of the present Contract shall take precedence over the terms of the Standard Employment
Contract”.
53. After having carefully analysed the foregoing provisions, the members of the Chamber
unanimously concluded that the jurisdiction clauses contained in the Contract and the
Standard Employment Contract considered in conjunction were not clear and exclusive in
line with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations and the well-established jurisprudence of
the Chamber, in that they provide the possibility for the Parties to submit their disputes
either to the NDRC of Cyprus and/or to FIFA.
54. In fact, the Chamber found that, in line with Clauses 2.3 and 2.8 of the Contract, (i) the
Parties had expressly agreed that in case of conflict, the provisions of the Contract would
prevail and (ii) the Club expressly acknowledged that the terms of the Standard
Employment Contract could not be amended, and agreed to include a jurisdiction clause
in favour of FIFA in the Contract.
55. Based on the above, the members of the Chamber underscored that the first pre-requisite
for establishing the competence of the NDRC of Cyprus was not met and, therefore,
without the need to enter the analysis of any further requirements, the Chamber decided
that the Club’s objection to the jurisdiction of FIFA to deal with the present matter had to
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17224
be rejected, and that the DRC does have jurisdiction, based on art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
56. The DRC emphasised that the foregoing conclusion is also in line with the jurisprudence of
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which has established that when the jurisdiction
clause in favour of a national body is not exclusive, and particularly if it mentions FIFA, FIFA
remains competent to hear any possible dispute. The DRC pointed out that, by way of
example, in CAS 2014/A/3579 Anorthosis Famagusta v. Emanuel Perrone the Panel decided
as follows:
“Upon review of article 17 of the Employment Contract, the Panel is of the opinion that this
clause does not explicitly and in a clear way make reference to one specific deciding body,
but to several courts and arbitration bodies, including the FIFA DRC and CAS. The Panel,
therefore, adopts the view of the FIFA DRC and deems that article 17 of the Employment
Contract cannot be considered as an exclusive arbitration clause in favour of the CFA
national deciding body, as asserted by the Appellant”.
57. 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. 29 of the
Regulations (January 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of said Regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
58. 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
59. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17224
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
60. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerned
a claim by a player against a club for breach of contract and its consequences.
61. The members of the Chamber initially observed that it was not disputed by the Parties that,
on 27 February 2024, the Club sent a letter to the Player informing him about the rejection
of the relevant authorities regarding its application for a work and residence permit for the
Player, on the basis that the latter had Hepatitis B.
62. Nonetheless, the DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Player claimed that this constituted
a termination without just cause due to the Club’s inability to obtain a residence and work
permit; on the other hand, the Club contended that the Contract was terminated by
operation of the law since, according to national law, a “third country national” that suffers
from Hepatitis B is not eligible to obtain a residence and work permit in Cyprus, and
therefore the contract is illegal.
63. In this context, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that their first task in the
dispute at hand was to analyse when was the Contract terminated.
64. The DRC then turned to the evidence submitted by the Parties, in particular, to the Club’s
letter of 27 February 2024, and noted that the Club informed the Player, inter alia, as
follows:
o On 21 December 2023, the Ministry of Interior rejected the Club’s application
regarding the residence and work permit for the Player;
o The rejection was based on the fact that the Player’s permit, as a “third country
national”, was subject to the approval of the Civil Registration and Migration
Department;
o In the absence of such approval, the Player’s stay and work in Cyprus is prohibited
and illegal;
o In view of the above, the Contract is terminated “by operation of the law and/or due
to impossibility of performance and/or due to illegality”; and
o Consequently, the Contract “is terminated with immediate effect”.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17224
65. The Chamber deemed that the first conclusion that follows from the aforementioned
communication and from the Club’s own submissions is that the Club confirmed not having
obtained a residence and work permit for the Player.
66. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Club contended that it did not unilaterally terminate
the Contract, but that it was terminated by operation of the law, which prohibits that a
“third country national” that suffers from Hepatitis B is granted a residence and work permit.
67. In this respect, the members of the DRC highlighted that as argued by the Player and
indicated in the termination notice of 27 February 2024, the Contract was terminated with
immediate effect in that date. In this context, the DRC considered the argument of the Club
that the Contract was terminated by operation of the law contradictory. In addition, the
DRC emphasised that the Club actually confirmed that the Player rendered his services
during the period between December 2023 and the termination notice.
68. As a consequence, the Chamber unanimously concluded that the Club’s position in this
regard could not be upheld.
69. In continuation, the DRC established that the Club failed to prove the alleged connection
or relation between (i) the failure to obtain the residence and work permit and (ii) the
Contract’s automatic termination by operation of the law.
70. Based on the foregoing, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Contract was not
terminated by the law, and unanimously decided that it was unilaterally terminated by the
Club on 27 February 2024.
71. The above having been established, the Chamber then proceeded to analyse whether the
Club had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract.
72. The Chamber recalled the Club’s position that the Contract was allegedly terminated due
to operation of the law considering the rejection of the work permit by the national
authorities.
73. In this respect and considering the arguments invoked by the Club related to the work
permit, the Chamber made reference to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations which expressly
establishes that the validity of a contract may not be subject to the grant of a work permit.
74. On the same note, the Chamber recalled its well-established jurisprudence, which dictates
that the engaging club bears the obligation to take all necessary administrative measures
to secure a work permit and/or visa for the player prior to the signing of the employment
contract.
75. As explained in the Commentary to art. 18 of the Regulations:
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17224
“Similarly to medical examinations, obtaining a valid work permit (…) is considered an
administrative formality that a club is required to complete prior to signing a contract with
a player. The engaging club is obliged to take all necessary administrative actions to ensure
a work permit and/or visa is granted to the player, thus allowing them to render their
services to the club. This action must be taken before the contract is signed. This principle is
consistent with Swiss law, according to which it is the employer’s responsibility to apply for
a work permit for a potential employee and/or liaise with the competent authority to obtain
or renew a work permit for an employee whose activity must be authorised.
If the parties sign the contract without having confirmed that any work permit or visa will
be granted, and if the competent authorities then refuse to grant the necessary
authorization, the contract will be considered valid and binding, and if it is terminated by
the club because of the refusal of the state authorities, the termination will be deemed to
have been without just cause.” (cf. p. 239 of the Commentary).
76. Accordingly, and considering that the Club confirmed not having obtained the relevant
permit for the Player, the Chamber deemed that the Club failed in its obligation to secure
such permit, which ultimately prevented the Player from staying in the country and
performing his obligations under the Contract.
77. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber considered it appropriate to clarify that the
fact that the Club had not faced a similar situation in the past does not imply that it is
released from its due diligence regarding the relevant administrative formalities or that it
was the Player’s responsibility, especially considering that the Player fulfilled his obligations
by undergoing the mandatory blood test. The Regulations are extremely clear in this
respect.
78. In view of the above, the Chamber unanimously concluded that the Club did not have just
cause to terminate the Contract, and that therefore the Club shall be held liable for the
consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
79. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of the breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
80. The Chamber observed that the only outstanding remuneration at the time of termination
comprised the housing allowance agreed under Clause 1.4.1 of the Contract, calculated on
a pro rata basis for the months of September 2023 to February 2024, as claimed by the
Player and not disputed by the Club.
81. Accordingly, considering that the Parties had contractually agreed on a housing allowance
of EUR 7,000 net per year, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the pro rata
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17224
calculation of the housing allowance that remained unpaid at the moment of termination,
i.e., EUR 4,666.67 net (EUR 7,000 net x 6 months / 9 months).
82. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest at the rate of
5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the day following their due dates (i.e.,
first day of each month) until the date of effective payment.
83. 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, taking into account the damage suffered,
according to the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts and
circumstances of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned.
84. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
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.
85. 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.
86. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Respondent to the Claimant 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.
87. 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
until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 140,333.33
net, calculated as follows, serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
o EUR 115,000 net as fixed remuneration for the period March 2024 to May 2026;
o EUR 2,333.33 net as the remaining pro rata calculation of the housing allowance
payable during the 2023/2024 season (i.e., March to May 2024);
o EUR 14,000 net as housing allowance for the seasons 2024/2024 and 2025/2026;
and
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-17224
o EUR 9,000 net for the Player’s participation in 3 matches in the terms established in
Clause 1.5.2 of the Contract, the occurrence of which was not only undisputed by
the Club, but was also confirmed by the statistics submitted by the Player.
88. In continuation, the Chamber verified 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
Chamber 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.
89. Indeed, the player found new employment with the Chinese club Shanghai JiaDing HuiLong
FC. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player is entitled to the
following fixed remuneration:
o USD 60,000 net for the period of November 2024 to December 2025; and
o USD 5,000 per month from January 2026 to December 2027.
90. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of USD 85,000 net (i.e., USD 60,000 net for the period November 2024 to December
2025 plus USD 25,000 net for the period January to May 2026), which is equivalent to EUR
78,418.90 net at the date of termination.
91. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of EUR
61,914.43 net to the Player (i.e., EUR 140,333.33 net minus EUR 78,418.90 net), which was
to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
92. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s 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% per annum as of 27 February 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
93. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-17224
94. 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.
95. 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. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
96. 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.
97. 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. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
98.
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.
99.
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.
100. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-17224
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Akinkunmi Ayobami
Amoo.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Omonoia FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 4,666.67 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 777,77 net as from 13 September 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 777,77 net as from 2 October 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 777,77 net as from 2 November 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 777,77 net as from 2 December 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 777,77 net as from 2 January 2024 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 777,77 net as from 2 February 2024 until the
date of effective payment.
- EUR 61,914.43 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum
as from 27 February 2024 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. 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.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-17224
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. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 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
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-17224
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. 22