Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5721
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 June 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ibrahima
Balde
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
Ibrahima Baldé, Senegal
RESPONDENT:
Giresunspor, Turkey
Represented by Atahan Sevimli
Page 2
REF FPSD-5721
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 8 September 2020, the Senegalese player Ibrahima Baldé (hereinafter: the player) and
the Turkish club Giresunspor (hereinafter: the club) concluded a contract, valid for the
period between 8 September 2020 and 31 May 2022, based on which he was entitled
to the following amounts:
For the season 2020/2021:
• EUR 25,000 on 8 September 2020;
• EUR 25,000 on 9 September 2020;
• EUR 170,000, payable in 10 instalments of EUR 17,000 for the period between October
2020 and July 2021.
For the season 2021/2022:
• EUR 330,000 for the 2021/2022 season, payable in 11 instalments of EUR 30,000 each,
the first payment being due on 31 August 2021.
2.
What is more, the player was also entitled to a bonus of EUR 10,000 in case he would
score more than 15 goals during the 2020/2021 season, and a bonus of EUR 20,000 if
the club would promote to the Super League.
3.
Article 6 of the contract contains the following clause: ‘The club is obliged to pay the
amounts as written below to the player in return of his services subject to his present
contract, all payments indicated in this present contract are agreed that our net
payments’.
4.
On 10 February 2022, the player put the club in default for the outstanding amounts,
providing the club a 15 days’ deadline to remedy its default, however to no avail.
5.
On 25 February 2022, the player put the club in default for the outstanding amounts,
providing the club a 14 days’ deadline to remedy its default, however again to no avail.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 8 April 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the player
7.
In his claim, the player explains that he scored more than 15 goals in the 2020/2021 season, as well a
promoted to the Super League, and that thus, next to his regular salary of EUR 220,000, he was also
30,000 as bonuses, for the 2020/2021 season.
Page 3
REF FPSD-5721
8.
What is more, the player explains that he only received an amount of EUR 185,000 during
the 2020/2021 season, as a result of which the amount of EUR 65,000 for the 2020/2021
season remained unpaid.
9.
What is more, the player explains that he only received an amount of EUR 185,000 during
the 2020/2021 season, as a result of which the amount of EUR 65,000 for the 2020/2021
season remained unpaid.
10. Also, the player argues that he only received an amount of EUR 90,000 during the 2021/2022
season, as a result of which the amount of EUR 150,000 “(EUR 240,000 -/- EUR 90,000)” for
the 2020/2021 season remained unpaid. The player holds that for the season 2021/2022, in
the period between August 2021 and March 2022, he was entitled to 8 payments of EUR
30,000 each, i.e. the total amount of EUR 240,000.
11. The requests for relief of the player, as amended, were the following:
• EUR 215,000 as outstanding remuneration, as follows:
- EUR 65,000 for the 2020/2021 season, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2021;
- EUR 30,000 for the November 2021 salary, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December
2021;
- EUR 30,000 for the December 2021 salary, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2022;
- EUR 30,000 for the January 2022 salary, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February
2022;
- EUR 30,000 for the February 2022 salary, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2022;
- EUR 30,000 for the March 2022 salary, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022.
b. Position of the club
12. In its reply, the club argued that it effectively paid an amount of EUR 123,684.61 to the
player, as a result of which only the amount of EUR 116,315.39 remained outstanding to the
player. In this respect, the club provided payment receipts for the following amounts:
- EUR 30,000 on 30 September 2021;
- TRY 33,750 on 15 October 2021;
- TRY 20,250 on 22 October 2021;
- TRY 7,500 on 1 November 2021;
- EUR 30,000 on 5 November 2021;
- TRY 11,250 on 19 November 2021;
- TRY 20,250 on 25 November 2021;
- TRY 90,000 on 3 December 2021;
- TRY 27,000 on 10 December 2021;
- TRY 27,000 on 21 December 2021;
- TRY 90,000 on 14 January 2022;
Page 4
REF FPSD-5721
- TRY 16,875 on 21 January 2022;
- TRY 20,250 on 4 March 2022;
- TRY 33,750 on 14 March 2022;
- EUR 30,000 on 14 March 2022;
- TRY 33,750 on 1 April 2022;
- TRY 33,750 on 8 April 2022;
- TRY 27,000 on 15 April 2022.
c. Reply player to payments
13. In reply to the above payments, the player denies the club’s allegations and explains that the
club did not make any attempt to explain which contractual payments have been made and
which not.
14. Moreover, the player argues that a part of the payments, i.e. the total amount of EUR 90,000
(three payments of EUR 30,000 each) as mentioned by the club were already acknowledged
by him, and that another part of the payments, i.e. the total amount of TRY 492,375 were in
fact bonus payments, as specified on the respective receipt. This also follows from the fact
that the salaries as per the contract were payable in EUR, and the bonus on TRY.
15. What is more, the player acknowledges that on 22 April 2022, an additional amount of EUR
40,000 was paid by the club, but that also an additional amount of EUR 30,000, due on 30
April 2022, fell due.
16. As a result, the player amends his claim and now requests an amount of EUR 205,000, plus
5% interest p.a. to be paid by the club.
d. Last position of the club
17. In its final position, the club confirms that on 22 April 2022, an amount of EUR 40,000 was
paid.
18. Additionally, the club argues that the player ‘falsely’ claims salaries for the 2020/2021 season,
as well as the salaries linked to the period between November 2021 and March 2022.
19. What is more, the club explains that some of the payments made in TRY were effectively
linked to the player’s ‘contractual receivables’, and were paid in TRY instead of EUR because
of the ‘Statement of Turkish Republic Ministry of Treasury and Finance about Protecting the
Value of the Turkish Lira’.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5721
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 8 April 2022 and submitted for decision on
15 June 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
21. Subsequently, the members of 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 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 Senegalese player
and a Turkish club.
22. 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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 April 2022, the March 2022 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
23. 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
24. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of
the matter at hand.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5721
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the payment of certain financial
obligations by the club as per the contract, namely the amounts due to the player by the club
as per the contract dated 8 September 2020.
26. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid
by the club and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not having complied with
its financial obligations.
27. The Chamber first noted that in the case at hand the club bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.
28. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the evidence provided by the club, namely a group of
payments confirmations of payments made to the player, as well as a document from the
Turkish Ministry of Treasury and Finance does not prove beyond doubt the payment of the
amounts claimed as outstanding by the player. Furthermore, no reasonable justification was
presented by the club for not having complied with the terms of the contract.
29. In particular, as to the argumentation submitted by the club regarding the payment receipts
referring to amounts paid in EUR, the Chamber noted that these amounts were not claimed
by the player, and thus do not affect the height of the club’s debt towards the player.
30. Moreover, as to the payments made in TRY, the Chamber was of the opinion that the
payment receipts submitted in connection with these payments clearly indicate that these
payments are linked to bonuses. What is more, the document from the Ministry, does not
prove that these payments were indeed solely linked to salary payments.
31. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the
club is held liable to pay the player the outstanding amounts deriving from the contract
concluded between the parties, namely EUR 205,000.
ii. Consequences
32. The Chamber observed that the financial obligations deemed as outstanding in the present
case correspond to EUR 205,000 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to EUR 25,000
as the outstanding part of the salaries for the 2020/2021 season, and 6 monthly salaries of
EUR 30,000 each for the period November 2021 and April 2022.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5721
33. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts claimed as
outstanding under the contract, in total EUR 205,000, as detailed above.
34. In addition, taking into consideration the payer’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective payment until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
35. 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.
36. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
37. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the player, 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 club in accordance
with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
38. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
39. The Chamber 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
40. 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.
Page 8
REF FPSD-5721
41. 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.
42. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 9
REF FPSD-5721
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ibrahima Baldé, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Giresunspor, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 205,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of
effective payment as follows:
o on the amount of EUR 25,000 as from 1 August 2021;
o on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 December 2021;
o on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 January 2022;
o on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 February 2022;
o on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 March 2022;
o on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 April 2022;
o on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 May 2022.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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 the ban shall
be of 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.
5. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
6. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 10
REF FPSD-5721
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).
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
Page 11