Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-7944
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 May 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Maxwell BAAKOH
BY:
Elvis Chetty (Seychelles), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Maxwell BAAKOH, Ghana
Represented by Islam Hisham
RESPONDENT:
Sahab, Jordan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-7944
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 February 2022, the Ghanaian player, Maxell Baakoh (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) and the Jordan club, Sahab SC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of its
signature until the end of the 2022 season in Jordan (according to the information displayed
in the TMS, the said season in Jordan came to an end on 10 December 2022).
2.
Paragraph 9 of the contract reads as follows: “The player shall be entitled for an annual paid
leave for a period of 14 days and both parties shall agree on the duration and time of such
leave”.
3.
In accordance with para. 18 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player – inter
alia – the following remuneration / provide the player with the following benefits:
-
USD 3,000 each as monthly salary (no due date for payment specified);
“Round trip tickets for the player”;
Accommodation / housing allowance (note: no amount indicated);
Vehicle Transportation allowance (note: no amount indicated).
4.
On 2 July 2022, the parties concluded a mutual termination agreement (hereinafter: the
termination agreement), which stipulates the following: “On this day SATURDAY the 2nd of
JULY 2022 the above two parties have agreed to terminate the contract between them which
starts on the 28 February 2022 and ends on the end of the season 2022. By signing this
agreement, there are no rights or obligations for the above two parties”.
5.
By means of his notice dated 29 September 2022, the player put the club in default of payment
in the amount of USD 13,000, corresponding to outstanding salaries and the reimbursement of
flight tickets’ expenses, due as per the contract, thereby granting the club a 10 days’ deadline
to cure its breach.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
On 21 October 2022, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before the
Football Tribunal, requesting to be awarded outstanding remuneration in the total amount
of USD 14,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates until the date of effective
payment, broken down by the Claimant as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-7944
-
USD 3,000 as salary of May 2022;
USD 3,000 as salary of June 2022;
USD 3,000 as salary of July 2022;
USD 3,000 as annual leave;
USD 1,000 as reimbursement of flight tickets’ expenses cf. para. 18 of the
contract;
USD 1,000 as legal costs.
7.
In his claim, the player explained that despite having agreed to enter into the termination
agreement, whereby the club undertook to pay the amounts due under the contract, the
club failed to do so in the agreed manner and even after having put the latter in default of
payment, the club failed to respect its contractual obligations, reasons why he has no
alternative but to lodge the present claim.
b. Position of the Respondent
8.
In its reply, the club stated (only) the following: “This is to inform you that the player BAAKOH
Maxwell has requested contract termination due to his mother’s health conditions from SAHAB
Sport club in (2nd of July 2022), which was agreed, signed and clearly mentioned that there are
no rights or obligations for both parties. Copy of the termination is attached”.
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
9.
In his replica, the player alleged, inter alia, the following:
-
“By the Club’s answer, it is crystal clear that the Club did not deny the fact that the Player
did not receive parts of his remuneration, nor provide any evidence proving that the
Player received all his salaries due of the work has already performed until the Contract
termination date (i.e. 2 July 2022), which confirms our allegations”;
-
“Notwithstanding the above, the termination agreement signed by both parties does not
consider a valid waiver for the Player’s remuneration of the work has already preformed,
and the Club is obliged to pay the Player’s salaries dues even although of signing the
termination agreement”;
10. Therefore, the player maintained that “it is clear that it may not waive the remuneration of
the work has already performed, and thus, if the Club has already paid the claiming salaries, it
should have provided the Honorable Chamber with evidence proving that” and reiterated his
previous request for relief.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
11. In its duplica, the Respondent provided the original of the termination agreement.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-7944
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as
the Single 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 21 October 2022
and submitted for decision on 10 May 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of
the March 2023 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.
13. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 (March 2022 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 player from
Ghana and a club from Jordan.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2023 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 October 2022, the July 2022 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
16. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that, in the following
considerations, he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-7944
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and observed that it is undisputed that the parties, on 2 July 2022, mutually decided
to terminate the contractual relationship that bound them. The key issue of the dispute at
hand is whether the following sentence – included in the termination agreement – prevents
the Claimant from validly claiming any credits as per the contract: “By signing this agreement,
there are no rights or obligations for the above two parties”.
18. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant argues that the Respondent
failed to pay his salaries as from May 2022 onwards, as well as to pay his flight ticket
(contractually agreed) and paid leave. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the
Respondent did not confirm having paid any of the amounts claimed, but simply referred
to the wording of the termination agreement, whereby the parties agreed that no rights or
obligations were pending between the parties.
19. In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the arguments of the Claimant shall
be partially accepted: despite the wording of the termination agreement, whereby the
Claimant implicitly confirmed having received all his financial credits until the date of its
conclusion (2 July 2022), the club did not sufficiently meet its burden of proof when
submitting the original specimen of the termination agreement.
20. In casu, and as maintained by the Claimant, pointed out the Single Judge, the Claimant is
entitled to receive his remuneration for the time where he rendered his contractual
services for the club, i.e. until 2 July 2022 (date on which the termination agreement was
concluded). Thus, since it remained undisputed that the salaries of May and June 2022 are
outstanding, the Single Judge decided that said salaries, in the amount of USD 6,000, shall
be awarded to the player.
21. As for the salary of July 2022, continued the Single Judge, since the Claimant did not contest
having entered into the termination agreement, it is to be considered that the player did
not render his services for the club as from said date. Therefore, the Single Judged
determined that the Claimant is not entitled to receive any salary for the month of July
2022.
22. In connection with the paid leave requested by the Claimant, considering that there is a
contractual basis (para. 9 of the contract), which states that the player shall be able to enjoy
a 14 days’ paid leave and the club did not contest the argumentation of the Claimant that
that paid leave was never enjoyed by the latter, the Single Judge decided that, in application
of the legal principle pacta sunt servanda, the amount of USD 1,400 shall be awarded to the
Claimant for such consideration ((3,000/30) * 14 = 1,400).
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-7944
23. As to the reimbursement of the flight ticket, the Single Judge explained that, insofar as the
Claimant failed to provide evidence of having incurred in any such expense, the Claimant
did not sufficiently meet his burden of proof to be awarded the amount requested.
However, since there is a contractual clause, whereunder the player is entitled to round
trip tickets, the Single Judge decided that the player shall be awarded USD 741
corresponding to the average price of a flight ticket Amman – Accra (in accordance with the
information provided by FIFA Travel).
24. Lastly, the Single Judge determined that the request of the Claimant to be awarded legal
costs is rejected cf. art. 25 para. 8 of the Procedural Rules.
ii. Consequences
25. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent and
decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 8,140 (corresponding to the
salaries of May and June 2022, as well as to the amount awarded as flight ticket’s expense).
26. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding salaries, as from the respective due dates until the
date of effective payment (concerning the outstanding salaries) and as from the date of
termination of the contractual relationship concerning the unpaid leave and the flight
tickets’ expense.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
27. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
28. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
29. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-7944
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.
30. 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.
31. The Single Judge 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
32. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
33. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
34. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-7944
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Maxwell BAAKOH, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Sahab, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 8,141 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
On the amount of USD 3,000, as from 1 June 2022 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of USD 3,000, as from 1 July 2022 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of USD 2,141, as from 2 July 2022 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-7944
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
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 10