Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16253
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Pape Insa
Badji
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Pape Insa Badji, Senegal
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
RESPONDENT:
MAT (MORGHEB ATHLETIC TETOUAN), Morocco
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16253
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 August 2023, the Senegalese player, Pape Insa Badji (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Moroccan club, MAT (MORGHEB ATHLETIC TETOUAN) (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid
as from 12 August 2023 until 30 June 2026.
2.
In accordance with clause 5 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly salary of
MAD 15,000 and a signature bonus of MAD 300,000 payable as follows: MAD 150,000
payable on 15 August 2023 and MAD 150,000 payable on 31 March 2024.
3.
Moreover, pursuant to clause 5 c-2 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to an annual
performance bonus as follows:
« Une prime annuelle de rendement, définie comme suit […]
Année
2
3
Saison
sportive
2024/2025
2025/2026
Montant
de Montant de référence en lettres
référence en chiffres
400 000 MAD
quatre cent mille dirhams
500 000 MAD
cinq cent mille dirhams
Conformément à l’article G-2 de l’annexe G du Règlement sur le statut et le transfert des
joueurs de la FRMF, la prime de rendement (« PRR ») due à un joueur au titre d'une saison
sportive est égale à :PRR = MRf * (MP) / (MO)
où
MRf: Montant de référence, en Dirhams, de la prime de rendement arrêtée entre le club et
le joueur à la signature du contrat, pour la saison concernée.
MP : Nombre de matchs officiels (Championnat, coupe du Trône, Compétitions de la CAF,
Compétitions de la FIFA) pour lesquels le joueur a figuré sur la feuille de match pour la
saison concernée ;
MO : Nombre de matchs officiels (Championnat, coupe du Trône, Compétitions de la CAF,
Compétitions de la FIFA)disputés par le club au cours de la saison concerné;
Nonobstant : Ce paragraphe ci-dessous; c-2bis) remplace la prime annuelle de rendement
mentionnée ci-dessus (article 5 ; Paragraphe, c-2) par :
c-2bis) Prime de rendement annuelle :
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16253
1. Pour la saison 2024/2025 la totalité de la prime de rendement sera versée au joueur
lorsque ce dernier participera à 5 matchs officiels payable selon les modalités suivantes :
- 40% payable le 1er Janvier [sic] 2025.
- 30% payable le 15 Mars [sic] 2025.
- 30% payable le 30 Avril [sic] 2025. »
Freely translated to English:
“An annual performance bonus, defined as follows […]
Year
Sports
season
Reference amount in Reference amount in words
figures
2
3
2024/2025
2025/2026
400 000 MAD
500 000 MAD
four hundred thousand dirhams
five hundred thousand dirhams
In accordance with Article G-2 of Appendix G of the FRMF's Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, the performance-related bonus (‘PRR’) due to a player in respect of a
sporting season is equal to:PRR = MRf * (MP) / (MO) where
MRf: Reference amount, in Dirhams, of the performance bonus agreed between the club
and the player when the contract is signed4, for the season in question.
MP: Number of official matches (Championship, Throne Cup, CAF Competitions, FIFA
Competitions) for which the player appeared on the match sheet for the season concerned;
MO: Number of official matches (Championship, Throne Cup, CAF Competitions, FIFA
Competitions) played by the club during the season in question.
Notwithstanding: This paragraph below; c-2bis) replaces the annual performance bonus
mentioned above (article 5; Paragraph, c-2) with:
c-2bis) Annual performance bonus:
1. For the 2024/2025 season, the full performance bonus will be paid to the player when he
takes part in 5 official matches, payable as follows:
- 40% payable on 1 January 2025.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16253
- 30% payable on 15 March 2025.
- 30% payable on 30 April 2025.”
4.
Clause 5.1.d of the Contract read as follows:
« A la fin de chaque saison sportive le joueur bénéficiera d’un montant total de 100.000
MAD (Cent mille Dirhams) si le joueur marque 10 buts ou plus. »
Freely translated to English:
“At the end of each season the Player would be entitled to a total amount of MAD 100,000
in case the Player scores 10 goals or more.” (hereinafter: the Objective Bonus).
5.
Pursuant to clause 5.2 of the Contract, the Player is entitled to housing for the duration of
the Contract and flight tickets Dakar-Casablanca-Dakar for each season.
6.
Clause 10 of the Contract read as follows:
« Le présent contrat peut être résilié avant son terme :
- en cas d'accord entre les parties;
- en cas de force majeure;
- en cas de faute grave de l'une ou l'autre des parties ou pour une juste cause au sens du
Règlement sur le statut et le transfert des joueurs de la FRMF et la FIFA.
- Le présent contrat peut être résilié avant terme d'un commun accord entre les parties ou
à l'initiative de l'une des parties, (exprimé d'un commun accord sans causer de préjudices).
- En cas de résiliation unilatérale avant terme non motivée par la faute grave de l’autre
partie ou par un cas de force majeure, et dans ce cas uniquement, des dommages-intérêts
dont le montant équivaut au montant des rémunérations correspondant à la période allant
de la date de la résiliation jusqu’au terme fixé par le présent contrat, seront dus à la partie
qui n’est pas à l’origine de la résiliation unilatérale. »
Freely translated to English:
“The present contract may be terminated before its term :
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16253
- by agreement between the parties;
- in the event of force majeure;
- in the event of serious misconduct on the part of either party, or for just cause within the
meaning of the FRMF and FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
- The present contract may be terminated early by mutual agreement between the parties
or at the initiative of one of the parties, (expressed by mutual agreement without causing
prejudice).
- In the event of unilateral premature termination not motivated by serious misconduct of
the other party or by force majeure, and in this case only, damages equivalent to the
amount of the remuneration corresponding to the period from the date of termination to
the term fixed by the present contract, will be due to the party not at the origin of the
unilateral termination.”
7.
Clause 19 of the Contract reads as follows:
« En cas de contestation et/ou de litige né de l’exécution ct/ou de l'interprétation des clauses
du présent contrat, les parties sont tenues de recourir à tous les moyens et procédures en
vue d’un règlement amiable du litige.
En cas d’échec, le différend est soumis, par l’une ou l’autre partie, à la chambre de
résolution des litiges de la Fédération Royale Marocaine de Football. Les décisions de la
chambre de résolutions des litiges de la FRMF sont susceptibles de recours conformément
aux dispositions des statuts et règlements de la FRMF. »
Freely translated to English:
“In the event of a dispute and/or litigation arising from the enforcement and/or
interpretation of the clauses of this contract, the parties are obliged to appeal to all means
and procedures with a view to an amicable settlement of the dispute.
If unsuccessful, the dispute shall be submitted by either party to the dispute resolution
chamber of the Royal Moroccan Football Federation. Appeals may be lodged against the
decisions of the FRMF dispute resolution chamber in accordance with the provisions of the
FRMF statutes and regulations.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16253
8.
According to the information retrieved in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the season
2023/2024 in Morocco started on 1 July 2023 and ended on 30 June 2024.
9.
On 16 May 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
MAD 230,000 corresponding to the salaries for January 2024 and April 2024 amounting to
MAD 30,000; the signature bonus amounting to MAD 200,000; setting a time limit of 15
days (hereinafter: the First Default Notice).
10. On 31 May 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
MAD 230,000 corresponding to the salaries for January 2024 and April 2024 amounting to
MAD 30,000; the signature bonus amounting to MAD 200,000; setting a time limit of 15
days (hereinafter: the Second Default Notice).
11. The Player scored 10 goals in the season 2023/2024.
12. Allegedly, on 10 June 2024, according to the Claimant, the Respondent replied to the
Claimant and requested an extension to pay the amounts due.
13. Allegedly, on 11 June 2024, the Claimant refused to grant an extension to the Respondent.
14. On 14 June 2024, the Respondent paid to the Claimant the amount of MAD 230,000.
15. Allegedly, on 5 July 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested MAD
130,000 corresponding to the salaries for May and June 2024 amounting to MAD 30,000
and the Objective Bonus amounting MAD 100,000; setting a time limit of 15 days
(hereinafter: the Third Default Notice).
16. On 17 July 2024, the Respondent paid to the Claimant the amount of MAD 30,000.
17. On 23 July 2024, the Claimant sent a termination notice to the Respondent.
18. On 6 August 2024, the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the termination letter,
however, it considered the termination letter void, claiming that the Club did not receive
the Third Default Notice.
19. On 6 September 2024, the Respondent paid the amount of MAD 15,000.
20. On 7 September 2024, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Egyptian club,
Al Masry Sporting Club valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2026. According to
such contract, the Claimant is entitled to the following amounts: USD 170,000 net for the
season 2024/2025 and USD 200,000 net for the season 2025/2026.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16253
II. Proceedings before FIFA
21. On 26 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
22. The Claimant lodged a claim for breach of contract.
23. With respect to jurisdiction, the Claimant argued that FIFA had jurisdiction over the matter,
as the Moroccan National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) did not meet the minimum
standards required for recognition by FIFA. Accordingly, clause 19 of the Contract, which
referred disputes to the Moroccan NDRC, had to be set aside in its entirety. In particular,
the Moroccan NDRC failed to comply with the principle of equal representation, as only
one of its eight members represented the players. Furthermore, the "Union Marocaine des
Footballeurs Professionnels" was not a member of the NDRC, and the body retained the
authority to issue decisions even in the absence of a players’ representative, further
evidencing its non-compliance with FIFA’s standards.
24. With respect to the merits, the Claimant argued that he had just cause to terminate the
Contract, as the Respondent constantly failed to pay his salaries and signature bonus on
the due dates. Moreover, following the First Default Notice and the Second Default Notice,
the Respondent paid the amount of MAD 230,000 as requested in such defaults, but failed
to pay the May 2024 salary. Then, it failed again to pay the June 2024 salary and the
Objective Bonus of MAD 100,000.
25. Moreover, the Claimant stressed that he sent the Third Default Notice requesting the
Objective bonus and the monthly salaries of May and June 2024. As to the communication
of the Third Default Notice, the Claimant mentioned that it was sent to the email address
mentioned in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and corresponded to the email used in
the First Default Notice and the Second Default Notice.
26. The Claimant concluded that he terminated the Contract on the basis of art.14 and 14bis
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
27. The Claimant requested payment of MAD 100,000 as outstanding remuneration. With
respect to the compensation, the Claimant mentioned that clause 10 of the Contract shall
apply and that he is entitled to MAD 345,000 which corresponded toMAD 180,000 ( salaries
for the season 2024-2025) plus MAD 180,000 (salaries for the season 2025-2026); less MAD
15,000 which corresponded tothe amount paid by the Club after the termination of the
Contract.
28. The Claimant requested the following relief:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16253
“FIRST – To uphold in full the present claim;
SECOND – To order the Club to pay the Player the amount of MAD 100,000 (one hundred
thousand Moroccan Dirhams) NET due as outstanding Performance Bonus, plus default
interest at the rate of 5% (five percent) per annum as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay the Player the amount of MAD 345,000 (three hundred and
forty-five thousand Moroccan Dirhams) NET due as compensation plus default interest at the
rate of 5% (five percent) per annum as from 24 July 2024 until the date of effective payment;
FOURTH – To impose sporting sanctions on the Club, notably, to ban the latter from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and
consecutive registration periods (cf. Art. 17, par. 4 of the FIFA RSTP);
FIFTH - To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute based upon the contents above
and notify the Club immediately through the FIFA Legal Portal; and
SIXTH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of any costs.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
29. With respect to jurisdiction, the Respondent considered that both parties agreed on clause
19 of the Contract, and that the Claimant should have filed the claim in front of the
Moroccan NDRC.
30. Then, as to the correspondences mentioned by the Claimant, the Respondent
acknowledged the reception of the correspondences sent by the Player on 31 May 2024
and 23 July 2024 (i.e. the First Default Notice and the Second Default Notice), however, it
contested the reception of the correspondence allegedly sent on 5 July 2024 (i.e. the Third
Default Notice).
31. Furthermore, the Club asserted that it had already paid the amount of MAD 350,000.
Therefore, in the Respondent’s view, had it received the Third Default Notice concerning
the Objective Bonus, it would have had no difficulty in paying the amount equivalent to two
months’ salary under the Objective Bonus. The Club considered that the Player's failure to
provide this correspondence was deliberate. Moreover, the Club argued that the Player has
not provided any evidence of the sending of this letter and, and in support of the failure to
receive this default notice, the Club has provided a copy of its mailbox.
32. Additionally, the Club stated that it had sent the case to the Club’s Disciplinary commission
regarding the Player’s absence to train. The Club has further notified the Moroccan Football
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16253
Federation (FRMF) the refusal of the Player’s transfer to the new club, and in support of its
position, it provided a copy of the letter.
33. With regard to the payment of the Objective Bonus, the Club argued that (i) this payment
was due at the end of the season, but there was no fixed date in the Contract, (ii) the results
were not final until they were validated by the FRMF, and (iii) the bonuses were not paid on
a monthly basis and therefore had to be calculated on a pro rata basis, and consequently
the amount claimed was incorrect.
34. The Club requested the following relief:
« 1. Concernant la forme, cette affaire doit être soumise à la chambre nationale de résolution
des litiges de la FRMF tel que prévu dans l’article 19 du contrat signé librement par le joueur.
2. Nous estimons que le joueur n’pas respecté la réglementation en vigueur et a procédé à
une résiliation unilatérale sans saisir le club par une lettre de mise en demeure en lui
octroyant un délai de quinze jour, par conséquent cette supposée résiliation est nulle et non
avenue.
3. Nous considérons que le joueur est toujours lié au club est que son contrat cours toujours.
4. Nous réitérons notre demande à la FIFA d’annuler l’autorisation octroyée au club
d’ALMASRY pour enregistrer le joueur. »
Freely translated to English:
“1. Regarding the competence, this case must be submitted to the FRMF's national dispute
resolution chamber as provided for in article 19 of the contract freely signed by the player.
2. We believe that the player did not respect the regulations in force and proceeded with a
unilateral termination without notifying the club by means of a letter of formal notice
granting it a period of fifteen days, therefore this supposed termination is null and void.
3. We consider that the player is still bound to the club and that his contract is still in force.
4. We reiterate our request to FIFA to cancel the authorisation granted to the ALMASRY club
to register the player."
c. Replica of the Claimant
35. In his replica, the Claimant stated that he “has no further comments in respect of the subject
matter herein under scrutiny other than those already set out in the Statement of Claim, which
are hereby reiterated in full.”
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16253
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
36. 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 26 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 27 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 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.
37. 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (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 an Senegalese player and a Moroccan club.
38. Notwithstanding, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Club challenged the
jurisdiction of FIFA to deal with the present matter.
39. More specifically, the Club alleged that the Moroccan NDRC was competent to deal with
the present matter, by virtue of clause 19 of the Contract, and that the Claimant should
have filed his claim in said deciding body.
40. The Chamber also observed that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to
adjudicate the present claim, asserting that the Morrocco NDRC does not comply with the
principles of Circular no. 1010 and with the NDRC Standard Regulations.
41. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber first recalled that art. 26 par. 1 lit c) of the
Regulations (February, June and October 2024, and January 2025 editions) establishes that
“Article 22 paragraph 1 b) and c) shall apply only to cases brought to FIFA as from 1 January
2025. Any other case shall be assessed according to the previous regulations”. As a result, the
Chamber decided that it had to assess this part of the claim using the May 2023 edition of
the Regulations, as this claim was brought to FIFA before 1 January 2025.
42. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22, par. 1, lit. c) of the
Regulations (May 2023 edition), FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear an employmentrelated 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, and which must guarantee fair
proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Such
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16253
arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective
bargaining agreement applicable on the parties.
43. Additionally, the Chamber referred to the Circular no. 1010, which establishes the
minimum principles that decision-making bodies must adhere to.
44. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether
the provision contained in clause 19 of the Contract constituted a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the Moroccan NDRC. The Chamber hereby recalled the
wording thereof, which stipulated:
“[…] If unsuccessful, the dispute shall be submitted by either party to the dispute resolution
chamber of the Royal Moroccan Football Federation. Appeals may be lodged against the
decisions of the FRMF dispute resolution chamber in accordance with the provisions of the FRMF
statutes and regulations.”
45. Having analysed the wording of the abovementioned clause, the Chamber noted that clear
reference was made to the Moroccan NDRC, and no reference was made to any other
tribunal.
46. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the jurisdiction clause under the Contract was clear and
exclusive in its wording.
47. Then, the Chamber moved on to analyse whether the Moroccan NDRC complies with the
minimum requirements stipulated in Circular no. 1010.
48. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to provide any documentary
evidence which could prove that the national arbitration bodies of the FRMF meets the
requirements established in art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, detailed in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the
NDRC Regulations. On account of the above, and referring to the principle of burden of
proof contained in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber established that the
Respondent’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter
must be rejected, and FIFA is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
49. Finally, 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, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16253
b. Burden of proof
50. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
51. 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
52. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the Contract by the
Player, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club as
per the Contract.
53. The Chamber observed that according to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with
just cause due to outstanding remuneration. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued
that the termination was void as it did not receive the Third Default Notice sent on 5 July
2024.
54. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that is task was to analyse the following :
-
-
Did the Player send the Third Default Notice on 5 July 2024?
Was the Contract terminated with just cause?
Did the Player send the Third Default Notice on 5 July 2024?
55. The Chamber noted that the only evidence submitted by the Player in relation to the Third
Default Notice was the notice itself, dated 5 July 2024. However, no supporting evidence—
such as an email or other proof of transmission—was provided to demonstrate when the
notice was actually sent. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that, despite having the
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16253
opportunity to submit such evidence both in the initial claim and in the replica, the Player
failed to do so.
56. Conversely, the Chamber acknowledged that the Club submitted evidence consisting of its
email inbox records covering the period from 4 to 6 July 2024, in which the Third Default
Notice was not found.
57. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player had not discharged his burden
of proof regarding the sending of the Third Default Notice. Consequently, the Chamber
could not consider the said notice as having been duly sent to the Club.
Was the Contract terminated with just cause?
58. Before assessing whether the contract was terminated with just cause, the Chamber first
examined the amounts outstanding at the time of termination.
59. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant asserted an amount of MAD 100,000
was due as an Objective Bonus at the time of termination of the Contract. Conversely, the
Respondent argued that the Objective Bonus had no specific due date for payment.
60. The Chamber observed that the Player had fulfilled the relevant conditions by scoring 10
goals - a fact that was not disputed by the Club.
61. The Chamber referred to clause 5.1.d of the Contract, which stipulates that the Player is
entitled to a total of MAD 100,000 at the end of each season if he scores 10 goals or more.
The Chamber found this clause to be clear regarding the timing of payment, which is at the
end of the season. Therefore, it concluded that the Objective Bonus became due no later
than 30 June 2024, the final day of the season.
62. Based on the above, the Chamber determined that at the time of termination of the
Contract, the Club owed the Player MAD 100,000.
63. The Chamber then proceeded to assess whether the termination was justified. In this
context, it emphasized that the formal requirements under art. 14bis of the Regulations
had not been met, as no formal notice of default had been issued.
64. The Chamber then passed to analyse whether the Contract was terminated in accordance
with art. 14 of the Regulations. In this respect the Chamber deemed it appropriate to
remind the parties that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies
the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which
do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship
between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more
lenient measures which can be taken in order to ensure the fulfilment of the contractual
duties by the counterparty, such measures must be taken before terminating an
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16253
employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever
be an ultima ratio measure.
65. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber noted the following: (i) the Club had consistently
failed to pay the Player’s salary on the agreed due dates; (ii) the Player placed the Club in
default on 31 May 2024, and although the Club initially remedied the default, it
subsequently failed to pay the Objective Bonus just one month later; and
(iii) the unpaid Objective Bonus constituted a significant amount, equivalent to at least six
monthly salaries.
66. In the Chamber’s view, the Respondent had thus repeatedly and for a significant period of
time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, and therefore
concluded that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract in accordance with art.
14 par. 1 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
67. 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.
68. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination of
the Contract, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, corresponds to MAD
100,000 as the Objective Bonus.
69. The Chamber also observed that the monthly salary of July 2024 was paid by Club on 6
September 2024, and therefore the Chamber did not grant this amount.
70. 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 amount
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of its termination, i.e. MAD
100,000.
71. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from 1 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
72. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable 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, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and
other benefits due to the Player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16253
time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on
whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
73. 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.
74. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of clause 10 of the Contract, which
established that:
“[…]
- In the event of unilateral premature termination not motivated by serious misconduct on
the part of the other party or by force majeure, and in this case only, damages equivalent to
the amount of the remuneration corresponding to the period from the date of termination to
the term fixed by the present contract, will be due to the party not at the origin of the
unilateral termination.”
75. After reviewing the clause - especially its final paragraph, which referred to possible
compensation in case of unilateral termination - the Chamber concluded that the clause
did not apply to this case. The clause stated that compensation equal to the remaining
value of the Contract was only owed to the party who did not initiate the termination, and
only if the termination was not caused by that party’s serious misconduct or by force
majeure. Although the wording was somewhat complex, the Chamber found that the
conditions in the clause did not match the facts of the case. Based on the evidence
presented, the Chamber concluded that the Player had terminated the Contract due to the
Club’s serious misconduct. Therefore, the clause was not applicable.
76. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
77. 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
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of MAD 345,000 serves as the basis for the determination of
the amount of compensation for breach of contract. In this respect, the Chamber stressed
that it did not include in the residual value the “annual performance bonus” as there were
conditional bonuses.
78. 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
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16253
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.
79. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Egyptian club Masry Sporting Club. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to
approximately USD 370,000/ MAD 3,550,446. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 370,000 / MAD 3,550,446.
80. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the termination
of the Contract took place due to said reason, i.e. overdue payables by the Respondent,
and therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
81. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of MAD
45,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player under the Contract.
82. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
MAD 45,000, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
83. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 July 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
84. 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.
85. 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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16253
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. 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
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-16253
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Pape Insa Badji.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, MAT (MOGHRIB ATHLETIC TETOUAN), must pay to the Claimant the
following amount(s):
- MAD 100,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- MAD 45,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23
July 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.
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. 19
REF. FPSD-16253
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 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. 20