Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16530
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Anicet
Andrianantenaina
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Anicet Andrianantenaina, France
Represented by Georgi Gradev
RESPONDENT:
Maccabi Reine, Israel
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16530
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 23 January 2023, the French player, Anicet Andrianantenaina (hereinafter: the Player or
the Claimant), and the Israeli club, Maccabi Reine (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 23 January
2023 until 31 May 2023.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a
monthly salary of ILS 64,133, along with a home allowance of ILS 4,000.
3.
Under clause 9 of the Contract, the parties agreed, inter alia, on the following handwritten
provision:
“If the club stay in the First league in season 22/23 we will sign him another 1 year contract
for season 23/24 and his salary will be the same salary and conditions of the last season
22/23) – contract automatically renew.”
4.
At the conclusion of the 2022/23 season, the Respondent finished in 11th place in the Israeli
Premier League, thereby avoiding relegation.
5.
On 25 June 2023, the Respondent’s sporting director sent a document to the Claimant
named “Waiver of claims against Maccabi Bnei Reineh FC” (hereinafter: the Waiver) as a
requisite for the Claimant to receive an outstanding amount from the Contract.
6.
The Waiver was never signed by either party.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 10 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
8.
According to the Claimant, the Contract was automatically extended for the 2023/24
season given that the Respondent avoided relegation.
9.
The Claimant argued that the wording used un clause 9 does not establish a separate
condition but rather an administrative requirement that the Claimant did not comply, i.e.,
“(…) we will sign him another 1 year contract season for season 23/24”.
10. The Claimant also alleged that the fact that the Respondent sent the Waiver to the Claimant
implied that it deemed the Contract to be renewed. In other words, if the Respondent
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16530
considered that the employment relationship between with the Claimant had ended at the
conclusion of the 2022/23 season, there would have been no need to submit the Waiver.
11. According to the Claimant, the Respondent terminated the Contract on 31 May 2023 since
the Waiver stated that the Contract had expired on that date.
12. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“1. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the outstanding amount of NIS 78,693, plus
interest of 5% p.a. as of May 31, 2023, until full payment.
2. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation of NIS 817,596, plus interest of 5%
p.a. as of May 31, 2023, until full payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent
13. Despite of being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16530
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 10 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 13 February 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.
15. 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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a French player and
an Israeli club.
16. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), the
January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. 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
18. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16530
19. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and noted that the case at hand
pertains to a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract
lodged by a player against a club.
20. The Chamber observed that the Claimant claims that (i) the Respondent failed to pay part
of its outstanding remuneration for the original 2022/23 season; and (ii) the Contract was
automatically extended for one additional season but was de facto terminated by the
Respondent on 31 May 2023 without just cause, making it liable to bear the corresponding
consequences.
21. The Chamber also observed that the claim remained uncontested by the Respondent, and
therefore concluded that the decision will be made based on the documents and
arguments on file (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
22. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the following:
a. Is the Claimant entitled to any outstanding amount for the original 2022/23 season?
b. Was the Contract validly extended?
c. In the affirmative, was the Contract terminated without just cause by the Respondent?
23. The Chamber proceeded the to analyse each matter in turn:
A. Is the Claimant entitled to any outstanding amount for the original 2022/23
season?
24. The Chamber first 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. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to reply to the
claim, despite being invited to do so, and that therefore it did not refute the Claimant’s
allegation in this regard, which remained uncontested.
25. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that, under the Contract, the Claimant was entitled
to the May 2023 salary amounting to ILS 64,133 which remained outstanding.
26. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber went on to examine the Claimant’s
entitlement to the ILS 14,560 bonus for avoiding relegation. In this respect, it noted that
the evidence on file submitted by the Claimant proved beyond doubt that the Respondent
had not been relegated. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was
entitled to the ILS 14,560 bonus, which remained outstanding.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16530
27. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the
outstanding amounts deriving from the Contract for the 2022/23 season, namely ILS
78,693.
B. Was the Contract validly extended?
28. Subsequently, the Chamber turned to the core issue of the dispute: whether the Contract
was validly extended between the parties until the end of the 2023/24 season.
29. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the interpretation of clause 9 of the Contract was
central to the dispute. The relevant provision states:
“If the club stay in the First league in season 22/23 we will sign him another 1 year contract for
season 23/24 and his salary will be the same salary and conditions of the last season 22/23) –
contract automatically renew.”
30. The Chamber went to analyse the documentation on file and deem it appropriate to
highlight the following:
-
The parties had added a handwritten clause 9 in the Contract to define the renewal
conditions, which stipulated that the Contract would automatically extend if the
Respondent was not relegated in the 2022/23 season—a condition that was fulfilled.
-
On 25 June 2023, the Respondent’s sporting director sent the Waiver to the Claimant
and the following messages were exchanged:
Claimant: "Ok that’s it, I have one more year contract there, but they don’t want me
anymore. Ok, it happened, but we have to find a good agreement, not that I finish my
contract like that—it is not like that."
Respondent: "Saied said this needs to be signed anyway after they discuss about next
year."
-
The Waiver, which was drafted by the Respondent, contained the following provisions:
"1. My employment contract with Maccabi Bnei Reineh FC (the 'Club') expired on May
31, 2023 by mutual acceptance and is not valid for the 2023/24 football season or any
other seasons.
(…)
7. I understand that my employment contract with the Club expired, by mutual
acceptance, and it will not be valid or enforceable in any way, and the parties will have
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16530
no claims or demands with regards to any obligations stipulated in the employment
contract."
31. In light of the above, the Chamber considered that clause 9 of the Contract, by itself,
induced a legitimate expectation on the part of the Claimant that the Contract extension
would be formally concluded, since the only prerequisite for the renewal had been met (i.e.
the non-relegation).
32. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent's own actions corroborated that it
also regarded the renewal as having taken place, namely: (i) sending the Waiver to the
Respondent to sign on 25 June 2023, despite the fact that the initial period of the Contract
ended on 31 May 2023, and; (ii) establishing in the Waiver that the Contract had expired by
mutual agreement, implicitly acknowledging that, absent such agreement, the Contract
would have remained valid.
33. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Contract shall be considered valid and
binding to the parties to the end of the 2023/24 season, i.e. 30 June 2024.
C. Was the Contract terminated without just cause by the Respondent?
34. The Chamber first observed that there was no explicit proof of termination on file.
Nevertheless, the Chamber was firm to determine that by sending the Waiver the
Respondent implied that no further services would be required from the Claimant.
35. The Chamber concurred with the Claimant’s position on this matter and decided that the
Contract was de facto terminated by the Respondent on 31 May 2023.
36. Likewise, the Chamber established that the termination took place without just cause as
there was not any evidence on file suggesting that the Claimant was in breach of contract,
let alone that he motivated the termination as an ultima ratio measure.
ii. Consequences
37. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
38. The Chamber observed that the financial obligations deemed as outstanding in the present
case include the May 2023 salary and the non-relegation bonus, totalling ILS 78,693
corresponding to the initial period of the Contract, as well as the June 2023 salary and home
allowance, totalling ILS 68,133, corresponding to the renewed period of the Contract.
39. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16530
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. ILS
146,826.
40. 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 Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. as follows:
-
on the outstanding amount of ILS 78,693 interests as from 1 June 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
-
on the outstanding amount of ILS 68,133 interests as from 25 June 2023 until the
date of effective payment.
41. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent 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 for the individual facts
and circumstances of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned.
42. 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 Contract at the basis of
the matter at stake.
43. 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. In this respect, as a general rule, the
compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall be equal to the residual value of
the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract.
44. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of ILS 749,463 (i.e.
USD 64,133 x 11 and ILS 4,000 x 11) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of Contract.
45. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16530
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.
46. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant remained unemployed since the
termination of the Contract.
47. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
48. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of ILS 749,463, i.e. 11 times ILS 68,133, as the residual value of the
Contract.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16530
53. 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
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16530
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Anicet Andrianantenaina, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Maccabi Reine, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- ILS 78,693 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- ILS 68,133 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 June 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- ILS 749,463 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25
June 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the
ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16530
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. 13