Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber (DRC) judge
passed on 24 February 2020,
by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Aaron Kofi Baah, Ghana,
represented by Mr Yussif Alhassan Chibsah
as Claimant
against the club,
Churchill Brothers S C, India
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 20 May 2019, the Ghanaian player, Aaron Kofi Baah (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) concluded an employment agreement with the Indian club, Churchill Brothers
Sports Club (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), valid as from “the day / date [the
player] report[s] to the management and shall remain in force till the end of the last I-League
match / Super Cup of the season 2019-20 or 31st May 2020 whichever is earlier.”
2.
Clause 10 of the employment agreement establishes that the Player is entitled to “RS
1,40,000 per month for his agreement period (season 2019-2020).” Moreover, according to
Clause 2 and 3, the player is provided with accommodation and medical treatment.
3.
On 21 August 2019, the parties signed a document referred to as “Termination of Contract”,
stipulating the following:
“This is to confirm that the football player contract made on 20th day of May 2019 between
CHURCHILL BROTHERS SPORTS CLUB PVT LTD of Margao, Goa, India herein known as the
"Club" and AARON KOFI BAAH, football player (herein known as the player) has on this day
been mutually terminated by both parties.
The above mentioned contract which was valid from 10th August 2019 to 31st May 2020
hereby stands mutually terminated with effect from 21st August 2019. The club confirms
that the player has been paid all his dues and neither the player nor the club has any
outstanding payments to each other. The club has released the player and he is free to join
any club of his choice.
The player confirms that the club has paid all his dues and neither the player nor, the club
has any outstanding payment to each other. The player undertakes not to claim any further
payments from the club.
Signed on this 21st August 2019 at Margao, Goa, India.
4.
On 21 August 2019, the player received “full and final payment of [his] wages” in the
amount of RS 71,500.
5.
On 25 September 2019, the player sent a letter to the club, informing the club that the
termination agreement was signed “under duress” and is therefore “null and void.”
Moreover, the player offered his services to the club.
6.
On 9 October 2019, the player sent another letter to the club, not accepting the
premature termination of the relationship, asking to return to India.
Player Aaron Kofi Baah, Ghana / Club Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 2 of 6
7.
On 17 October 2019, the club replied that the termination was based on the fact, that
“performance was not good” and that all dues “have been paid” as the player
acknowledged in the termination agreement.
8.
On 26 November 2019, the player lodged a claim against the club and requested the
payment of RS 2,151,397 “(approx. EUR 27,068.08)” as compensation, related to the club’s
breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 August 2019 until the date of effective
payment.
9.
Furthermore, the player requested “the reimbursement of the flight ticket, to be determined
by the FIFA Travel department plus 5% interest as from the date of termination of the
employment contract.”
10. With regard to the costs related to the case, the player requested the payment of the legal
fees in the amount of EUR 2,000.
11. The player is of the opinion, that the club “has forced [him] to sign” the termination
agreement.
12. According to the player, it was not in his interest to terminate, especially since there was “no
agreement related to the recognition of a compensation, in money or kind.” Moreover, the
player only signed the contract because of the threats of the club, regarding the registration
of player’s his visa, leaving the player “illegal” in India.
13. The player furthermore argues that the termination was initiated and motivated based
on the “Club’s unilateral will”, since the latter “forced” the Player to terminate the
contract because his “performances were not good enough to play for the Club” and
the agreement “only benefited the Respondent.”
14. As a consequence, the player pleads for the applicability of art. 17 RSTP regarding the
compensation due from the club.
15. In his claim, the player provided the following breakdown for the payments above mentioned compensation due from the club, basing his calculation on the remaining
value of the contract:
- The amount of “Rs. 51,334 (approx. EUR 645.88) corresponding to the 11 pending
days of salary of August 2019”;
- The amount of “Rs. 1,260,027 (approx. EUR 15,853.32) corresponding to the pending
monthly payments of the 2019/2020 season (September 2019 to May 2020).”
16. Furthermore, the player requests additional 6 months of salaries in the amount of
“Rs. 840,017.8 (approx. EUR 10,568.88)” due to the “egregious circumstances”.
17. The total compensation payable should, according to the player’s calculation, amount
to “RS 2,151,397 (approx. EUR 27,068.08).”
18. In its reply, the club rejected the claim of the player.
19. The Club maintained that after evaluating the performance of the Claimant, it decided that
the player did not possess the requisite quality of experience to be a part of the first team
of the club. Along this line, it held that it informed the player that he would be taring and
playing matches with the reserve team, and that if his performance improved, he would be
Player Aaron Kofi Baah, Ghana / Club Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 3 of 6
considered for selection with the first team. The club considered important to highlight that
in accordance with the agreement, there is no obligation “to allow the Claimant to train
with or play for the first team”.
20. According to the club, the player informed it that he did not want to be part of the reserve
team and that he wished to leave the club as soon as possible since the transfer window in
Ghana was set to close on 31 August 2019.
21. Along this line, the club sustained that it decided to release the player on such short notice
since it is against its policy to keep players against their will and only at the express request
of the player.
22. With this in mind, the club explained that on 21 August 2019, the player was invited for a
meeting, where it was agreed that the contract would be terminated by mutual consent and
that he would be paid part of August 2019. The club held that it also agreed to purchase
flights for his return although it did not have the obligation to do so.
23. The club referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the RSTP and held that the player has failed to provide
any evidence of coercion and that I has failed to discharge his burden of proof.
24. The club further held that that the player had no obligation to sign the termination
agreement but nevertheless he did and that if it was indeed true that the club threatened
him, he could have terminated on the grounds of art. 14.2 of the RSTP, however, he chose
not to since there was no abusive conduct form the club.
25. The club requested inter alia that the claim is rejected and to impose “exemplary costs to
the tune of INR 5,00,000 for initiating frivolous litigation”.
26. Finally, the player explained that he remained unemployed as from the termination of the
contract
II.
Cons iderations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter: the DRC judge or the
Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he
took note that art. 21 of the November 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules) establishes that said edition is applicable as from 1 November 2019.
Therefore, the November 2019 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
2.
Subsequently, DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that
in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC Judge is competent to deal with employmentrelated disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension, in this case, a
Ghanaian player and an Indian club, with up to a litigious value of CHF 200,000.
3.
Furthermore, the Judge 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 Players, and considering that the present claim
was lodged on 26 November 2019, the October 2019 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
Player Aaron Kofi Baah, Ghana / Club Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 4 of 6
4.
The competence of the Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Judge entered into the substance of the matter. The Judge started by acknowledging the
facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Judge
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.
5.
In this respect, the Judge noted that the parties concluded an employment contract on 20
May 2019.
6.
Subsequently, the Judge noted that, on 21 August 2019, the parties mutually terminated the
contract, indicating the contents referred in point I. 3 above.
7.
Within this context, the Judge took note that the claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against
the club for breach of contract without just cause, noting, in particular, that the
Respondent“has forced [him] to sign” the termination agreement.
8.
As a result, the considered that he should first and foremost analyse whether the
aforementioned termination agreement had to be deemed as valid and binding and, if that
was the case, which legal consequences may arise thereof.
9.
In this respect, the Judge first observed that a copy of said agreement was submitted by the
Claimant himself in his claim, and that said agreement was signed both by the player and
the club.
10. In relation to said arguments, with reference to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in
accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry
the burden of proof, the Judge noted that there is no sufficient conclusive evidence on file
that would indicate that the player was forced to sign the document.
11. What is more, the Judge referred to the jurisprudence of the DRC, according to which any
party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise content does
so on its own responsibility.
12. The Judge therefore concluded that the player was properly aware of the circumstances
surrounding the signature of the termination agreement and therefore consented to it on
his own will. As a result, the Judge could only acknowledge that the termination agreement
was fully valid and binding.
13. As to the legal consequences of the termination agreement, the Judge noted that said
document clearly stipulated the following:
The player confirms that the club has paid all his dues and neither the player nor, the club
has any outstanding payment to each other. The player undertakes not to claim any further
payments from the club.
14. Thus, the DRC Judge understood that the contents of the termination agreement were clear
and that, as a result, the claim of the Claimant had to be rejected in full.
15. Furthermore, as regards the claimed legal expenses and procedural costs, the DRC Judge
referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the longstanding and well-
Player Aaron Kofi Baah, Ghana / Club Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 5 of 6
established jurisprudence of the DRC Judge, in accordance with which no procedural
compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the requests relating to legal expenses and
procedural costs.
III.
Decis ion of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
The claim of the Claimant, Aaron Kofi Baah, is rejected.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the
DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the motiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly
within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in
accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days following
the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief
stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS.
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the DRC judge:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Aaron Kofi Baah, Ghana / Club Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 6 of 6