Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15191
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 November 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the Player Abdi Hassan Banda
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Abdi Hassan Banda, Tanzanian
Represented by Eben Koen
RESPONDENT:
Richards Bay, South Africa
Represented by Kabelo Humphrey Mashigo
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15191
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 31 July 2023, the Tanzanian player Abdi Hassan Banda (hereinafter, the Claimant or the
Player) and the South African club Richards Bay (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club)
concluded the so-called “Contract Letter” (hereinafter, the Contract Letter) pursuant to
which:
“Introduction:
I have great pleasure in confirming your appointment as a professional footballer of [the
Respondent]. Your appointment is for a fixed period and will end by agreement on the
termination date. This letter provides you with details of your contract of employment and refers
to the various documents that make up the contract. Please ensure that you have read these
carefully and that you understand all the terms and conditions that apply to your employment.
Job Title: Professional Footballer of [the Respondent].
Date of Commencement: 31 July 2023.
Date of Termination: 30 June 2024.
Contract period: 1 year plus 1 year option.
Remuneration and benefits:
Salary: R 50,000 net from 31 July 2023 to 30 June 2024
R 60,000 net from 01 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 – option.
Benefits:
Bonuses according to the club structure.
Accommodation: R 3,500.
2 Return tickets.
Signing on fee: R 100,000 net.
Signing on fee: R 150,000 net – option.
General:
This letter of appointment, the [Respondent’s] handbook, and the Constitution and Rules of the
NSL comprise your contract of employment.
In the event of any contradiction between these documents, this letter of appointment read with
the handbook will prevail save in the event that such an interpretation would be unlawful in
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15191
consequence of the Constitution of the Conciliation and Rules of the NSL (the football rules) in
which event the offering term will be excised from your contract of employment and the balance
of the terms read with the football rules will apply. Every term in the handbook applies to you
save it is expressly excluded in this letter of appointment or the handbook itself”.
2.
Also on 31 July 2023 the Player and the Club (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties)
concluded the so-called “Fixed term contract of employment for professional footballers”
(hereinafter, the Contract), valid as from 31 July 2023 until 30 June 2024.
3.
According to the Schedule of the Contract, the Player was entitled to the following
remuneration:
“R 50,000 net per month from 31 July 2023 to 30 June 2024.
R 60,000 net per month from 01 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 – opt”.
4.
Pursuant to Clause 19 of the Contract:
“19.1 All disputes arising out of or relating to this contract, including disputes as to the meaning
or interpretation of any provision of this contract or as to the carrying into effect of any such
provision or as to the termination or consequences of termination shall be referred to Dispute
Resolution in accordance with the NSL rules from time to time.
19.2 The parties warrant that, in accordance with the football rules, any and all disputes of
whatsoever shall be determined in accordance with the NSL rules and in the Dispute Resolution
Tribunals of the NSL rather than before any court or other tribunal insofar as it is a requirement
of FIFA and other footballing rules that the internal dispute resolution mechanisms available in
football should be utilised by participants in the game save where the football rules do not
provide an appropriate tribunal to determine the dispute”.
5.
On 2 May 2024 the Club booked a flight ticket to Tanzania for the Player to attend a funeral.
6.
On 14 May 2024, the Player texted via WhatsApp the Club’s manager informing that he
would return next week.
7.
On the same date, in reply, the Club’s manager informed that “Next week are playing our last
match of the season after that all players are going home. So I didn’t see any reason for the club
to waist any money to book for you a return ticket to come here and go back”.
8.
On 16 May 2024, the Player put the Club in default requesting payment of ZAR 100,000 per
the sign-on fee agreed, granting it a deadline of ten days to comply with its financial
obligations.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15191
9.
Also on 16 May 2024, the Player sent another letter to the Club informing that: “(…) our
client has decided to accept and activate the Option and extend the Contract. Accordingly, please
be advised that this letter serves as our client’s notice to [the Respondent] that the Option has
been activated, and the Contract extended”.
10. On 20 May 2024, the Player sent the following WhatsApp message to the Club’s manager:
“Afternoon boss. If going to play play-off so I’m not suppose to come back? If team is going to
play off?”
11. Also on 20 May 2024, in reply, the Club’s manager informed that “I will check with the
coaches”.
12. On 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 May 2024, the Player insisted via WhatsApp on the flight tickets.
13. On 26 May 2024, the Club confirmed that the sign-on fee would be paid “by the first of June
2024”.
14. On 28 May 2024, the Player once again insisted on the flight tickets.
15. Also on 28 May 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s repeated WhatsApp messages that
“The Club say you must wait that we will call you back if it’s necessary”.
16. On 31 May 2024, the Player informed the Club via WhatsApp that “I have taken the option to
extend my contract with the club. My attorneys have communicated this to you already”.
17. During the first week of June 2024, the Player insisted via WhatsApp on the payment of his
sign-on fee, and the Club confirmed that he would receive his money.
18. On 1 July 2024, the Player put the Club in default requesting payment of ZAR 200,000,
corresponding to the sign-on fee (ZAR 100,000) and to the monthly salaries of May and June
2024 (i.e., ZAR 50,000 each). The Player granted the Club a deadline of fifteen days to
comply with its financial obligations.
19. On 4 July 2024, the Club paid the Player ZAR 147,000.
20. On 5 July 2024, the following WhatsApp conversation took place between the Player and
the Club’s president:
[Player]: “Good day, will you book my flight so I can come to pre-season and start the option
year of my contract”.
[Club]: “I don’t know what you are talking about”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15191
[Player]: “My contract is still for another year as I have taken this option. This was
communicated to the club by my attorneys. You have an obligation to honour my contract for
another year. Please confirm when you will book my flights to join preseason”.
[Club]: “You are really mad. You don’t get tired to steal money”.
[Player]: “I want to serve the club. Please confirm when my flights will be booked to join the
team”.
[Club]: “Go to Chippa”.
[Player]: “Does that mean you will not honour my contract?”.
21. According to the Player, on or about 5 July 2024 the Club issued the so-called “clearance
certificate”, dated 30 June 2024, where it is stated that “This serves to confirm that [the Player]
has been released by [the Club] to join a club of his choice. The Player acknowledges that the
club has fulfilled all its responsibilities and obligations towards the player, and the club is not
indebted to the player in any way”.
22. Upon invitation of the FIFA General Secretariat, the Player informed that on 1 August 2024
he concluded an employment contract with the South African club Baroka Football Club,
valid as from 1 August 2024 until 30 June 2025.
23. Pursuant to this new contract, the Player is entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of
ZAR 25,000 net. The Player sustained having mitigated his damages during the relevant
period in the amount of ZAR 487,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 10 July 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
25. According to the Player, he never received a copy of the handbook despite the terms of the
Contract Letter.
26. The Player sustained that in May 2024 he had to depart to Tanzania to attend a funeral,
which was approved by the Respondent. In this respect, the Club only booked a one-way
ticket, which is indicative of its intention towards him. According to the Player, at this
moment the Club had not paid the sign-on fee of ZAR 100,000 as stipulated in the Contract
Letter.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15191
27. The Player argued that, pursuant to his communication of 16 May 2024, the employment
relationship was extended until 30 June 2025, which was further communicated via
WhatsApp on 31 May 2024. Furthermore, the Player sustained that the Club also failed to
pay him the months of May and June 2024, and never provided him with flight tickets back
to South Africa.
28. According to the Player, the extension option was reciprocal, and could be exercised by
either party unilaterally. The Player argued that both the duration and the terms and
conditions of the extension where fair and reasonable, and was executed within an
acceptable deadline before the expiry of the original term. Accordingly, the Player
sustained that the employment relationship was extended until 30 June 2025.
29. Moreover, the Player argued that the Club terminated the employment relationship
without just cause on 30 June 2024 by means of the clearance certificate.
30. Based on the foregoing, the Player claimed being entitled to outstanding remuneration in
the amount of ZAR 53,000, as well as to compensation for breach of contract in the amount
of ZAR 1,695,620 as follows:
- ZAR 1,440,000 as monthly remuneration from July 2024 to June 2026 (i.e., ZAR 60,000
each);
- ZAR 84,000 as accommodation from July 2024 to June 2026 (i.e., ZAR 3,500 each);
- ZAR 21,620 as flight tickets; and
- ZAR 150,000 as sign-on fee.
31. The Player requested the following relief:
a) Enforce its jurisdiction over the matter;
b) Find the Respondent guilty of breaching the employment contract, entered into between the
parties, without just cause;
c) Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of ZAR 1,748,620, which amount
represents the balance of the Employment Agreement, and which amount is still outstanding;
d) Determine that an interest rate of 5% per annum shall apply over the total amounts due by
Respondent, as from the day immediately after the date in which each of the amounts due
became payable until de date of effective payment; and
e) Order the Respondent to bear any and all legal costs and expenses incurred by the Claimant
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15191
in connection with the present claim.
b. Position of the Club
32. In its reply, the Club disputed the competence of FIFA to hear the present dispute. In this
regard, the Respondent argued that the Parties explicitly opted to refer any disputes to the
South Africa National Soccer League’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the NSL of
South Africa) under Clause 19.2 of the Fixed Term Contract of Employment and par. 96.1 of
the Club’s handbook.
33. Furthermore, the Club sustained that art. 8 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
between the National Soccer League and the South African Football Players Union provides
the competence of the NSL of South Africa. According to the Club, the NSL of South Africa
guarantees fair proceedings and respects the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs.
34. As to the substance of the case, the Club argued that the Contract did not provide the
Player with a unilateral right to exercise an option “which is by agreement granted to the
Respondent being the club”. Instead, it sustained that the Player was aware of the right of
the Club to unilaterally extend the Contract, which was not exercised and, consequently,
the Contract expired on 30 June 2024, as was expressly communicated to the Player. In
particular, the Club referred to the following clause:
“34. EXTENSION OPTION
The Club shall have a further irrevocable option, to which the Footballer has agreed to in full, to
renew this agreement upon the terms and subject to the following conditions:
The period for which this agreement may be so renewed is determined by the period inserted
on the Schedule and shall.
All the terms and conditions of this agreement shall continue to apply during the
extension/renewal period, save the remuneration which will be reflected in the Schedule.
Should the Club with to exercise the Option to extend the contract period, as reflected in the
Schedule, the Club shall do so in writing from the Club to the Footballer, given and received no
later than 31 days before the expiry date of the current agreement as reflected in the schedule,
by means of an e-mail transmission sent to the office of the Footballer’s agent and/or
manager/representative or to the player if there is no recognized representation agreement in
place.
If the right of renewal is duly exercised, the Agreement shall be renewed automatically, without
the need for any further act of the parties hereto.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15191
It is specifically recorded and agreed that, notwithstanding anything contained in this clause or
in law, the Club is expressly granted the right to demand/sue for specific performance in terms
of this option”.
35. Moreover, the Club sustained having issued a copy of the Club’s handbook via its WhatsApp
group, and that it was available at the Club’s offices and training facilities.
36. According to the Club, it provided the Player with four return flight tickets during the
2023/2024 season, and that consequently the May 2024 was the last return flight ticket to
which the Player was entitled to. Furthermore, that during the months of May and June
2024 the Player did not provide any services, and still it paid his salaries.
37. The Club further sustained that on or around 14 May 2024 it requested the Player to return
to work, but he refused to do so. Additionally, that on 4 July 2024 it paid the Player the
outstanding remuneration for the 2023/2024 season, and that as of 1 July 2024 the Player
was no longer an employee of the Club.
38. The Club requested the following relief:
“The Respondent prays that the Claimant’s case be dismissed with costs”.
c. Replica of the Player
39. In his replica, the Player argued that the Club based his entire defence on the existence
and enforceability of an employment contract, which is not signed by the Player, and the
Club’s handbook, which is not signed either. In this respect, “the respondent cannot rely on
the principle of pacta sunt servanda to support its defence, as the foundational element – a valid
contract – does not exist”.
40. According to the Player, the only signed contract in file is the one submitted by himself,
where it is clearly provided an option for either party to extend the Contract. Furthermore,
the Player reiterated that he validly extended the Contract.
41. The Player reiterated his request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Club
42. In its duplica, the Club initially argued that the Player failed to reply to its arguments as to
the competence of FIFA, thus accepting its position.
43. The Club insisted on the fact that the unilateral extension option was only enforceable by
the Club, and rejected the Player’s entitlement to any amounts.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15191
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
44. 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 10 July 2024 and submitted for decision on
21 November 2024. 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.
45. 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 October
2024 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Tanzanian player and a South African club.
46. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies in favour of the NSL of South Africa, alleging that the latter was competent
to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract in accordance
with its Clause 19.2 and under the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
between the National Soccer League and the South African Football Players Union.
47. At this point, the Chamber reverted to the Transitional measures established in art. 26 par.
1 lit. c) of the Regulations (editions of October, June and February 2024), in accordance with
which “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.”
48. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations (May 2023 edition), FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear
an employment-related 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. Any such
arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective
bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national tribunal must
guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National
Dispute Resolution Chamber Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January
2008.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15191
49. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the
employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the NSL of South Africa. In this respect, the DRC referred to
Clause 19.2 of the Contract, according to which:
“19.1 All disputes arising out of or relating to this contract, including disputes as to the meaning
or interpretation of any provision of this contract or as to the carrying into effect of any such
provision or as to the termination or consequences of termination shall be referred to Dispute
Resolution in accordance with the NSL rules from time to time.
19.2 The parties warrant that, in accordance with the football rules, any and all disputes of
whatsoever shall be determined in accordance with the NSL rules and in the Dispute Resolution
Tribunals of the NSL rather than before any court or other tribunal insofar as it is a requirement
of FIFA and other footballing rules that the internal dispute resolution mechanisms available in
football should be utilised by participants in the game save where the football rules do not
provide an appropriate tribunal to determine the dispute”.
50. The Chamber, after analysing the wording of the jurisdiction clause, concluded that such
clause was indeed exclusive and in favour of the competence of the NSL of South Africa.
51. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the further prerequisites for establishing the competence of a NDRC. The DRC namely referred to principle
of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle is one of the
very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution
chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the
Regulations, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations,
which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of
the following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a
deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between
three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the
players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a
selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).”
In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal
influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall
have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman
of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list,
every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the
compilation of the arbitrator list”.
52. With the above in mind, the Chamber went on to examine the documentation submitted
by the Respondent and noted that the NDRC of South Africa is composed by the NSL DRC
(as a first instance) and the SAFA Arbitration Tribunal (as a second instance, competent to
hear the appeals filed against the decisions of the NSL DRC), as established in arts. 1 par. 4
and 2 of the “First Schedule Foundational DRC” provided by the Club.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15191
53. In this regard, the Chamber also wished to emphasize that, pursuant to the wellestablished jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, when a NDRC is composed of two
instances, in order to effectively guarantee the procedural rights of the parties, the
minimum standards outlined in art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations need to be complied
with at both jurisdictional levels (first instance and appeal body established under the
auspices of the Member Association). In this scenario, the relevant regulations of the
appeal body shall be brought to the proceedings before FIFA in order to also assess its
fulfilment with the principles outlined ut supra.
54. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the Club failed to provide any documentation as to
the composition or functioning of the SAFA Arbitration Tribunal, and consequently the DRC
concluded that the Respondent failed to submit enough documentation as corroborating
evidence to prove that the NDRC of South Africa, in particular, its appeal body, meets the
requirements of the FIFA Circular nº 1010.
55. The above has also been confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in a case
that also dealt with the NDRC of South Africa (CAS 2021/A/8018 Cape Town City Football
Club v. Christofer David & FIFA):
“The importance of the appellate mechanisms stems from the need to ensure that the principles
of FIFA Circular 1010 are respected throughout the national dispute resolution system, as the
absence of associated structural and procedural guarantees on appeal would negate the
legitimacy of the system, regardless of the compliance of the first instance.
Considering the “default” nature of the FIFA DRC’s competence, the Appellant bears the burden
of proving the national dispute resolution mechanism’s compliance with the minimum
standards (see Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code, as well as Swiss Federal Tribunal decisions ATF
III 60 & ATF 130 III 417)”.
56. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also referred to the award rendered in CAS
2018/A/5659 Al Sharjah Football Club v. Leonardo Lima da Silva & FIFA, which further
examined the foregoing and ruled as follows:
“The Panel must look at the entire dispute resolution mechanism of the UAE FA and not only to
the procedure before the UAE FA DRC. The UAE FA DRC Regulations provide in article 32 the
possibility of an appeal against the decisions of the UAE FA DRC and in the two decisions
submitted by the Appellant it is also mentioned that “[t]his decision is able to be appealed before
the Arbitration Committee within 7 days (…).
(…) the Appellant has failed to show that the appeal procedure meets FIFA’s principles and
standards. Based on these considerations, the Panel concludes that the UAE FA DRC has no
jurisdiction in this case and that the FIFA DRC was indeed competent to adjudicate and decide
on the proceedings leading to the Appealed Decision”.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15191
57. On account of all the above, the DRC established that the Respondent’s objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the
Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider
the present matter as to the substance.
58. 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 (October 2024 edition), and considering that the present claim
was lodged on 10 July 2024, the June 2024 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
59. 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
60. 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
61. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact it
concerned a claim of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration, the purported
extension of the Contract by the Player and its alleged unilateral termination by the Club
and its consequences.
62. In this regard, the DRC observed that, according to the Player, on 16 May 2024 he exercised
his right to unilaterally extend the Contract until 30 June 2025, and that ultimately the Club
terminated the Contract on 30 June 2024. Accordingly, the Player claimed being entitled to
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15191
63. The Chamber also observed that, on its part, the Club sustained having fulfilled its financial
obligations under the Contract, and that the Contract only foresaw a unilateral extension
option in its favour. In this regard, given that the Club decided not to exercise this right, the
Contract expired on 30 June 2024, as expressly communicated to the Player. Consequently,
the Club rejected the Player’s entitlement to any amounts.
64. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it shall address the following:
I.
Is the Player entitled to any outstanding remuneration for the 2023/2024 season?
II.
Was the Contract extended for the 2024/2025 season?
***
I.
Is the Player entitled to any outstanding remuneration for the 2023/2024 season?
65. The Chamber initially noted that the Parties strongly disputed the payment of certain
financial obligations by the Club as per the Contract.
66. In particular, the DRC noted that, according to the Player, when the Contract was allegedly
terminated by the Club on 30 June 2024 (i.e., at its initial expiry date), the Club had failed to
remit his remuneration for May and June 2024, in the amount of ZAR 50,000 each, as well
as the sign-on fee of ZAR 100,000. Accordingly, the Player claimed being entitled to the sum
of ZAR 200,000 as outstanding remuneration.
67. 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 Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not
having complied with its financial obligations.
68. The DRC further noted that, in casu, the Respondent bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between the Parties.
69. In this regard, the Chamber observed that even though the Club argued having fulfilled
with the outstanding remuneration claimed by the Player, the evidence on file only
corroborated a payment in the amount of ZAR 147,000, made on 4 July 2024.
70. In view of the above, and bearing in mind the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which
in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the
Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding remuneration deriving from
the Contract concluded between the Parties, i.e., ZAR 53,000 composed as follows:
- ZAR 3,000 as the May 2024 salary; and
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15191
- ZAR 50,000 as the June 2024 salary.
71. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’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% per annum on the outstanding remuneration as from the relevant due dates until the
date of effective payment as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024 for the May 2024 salary; and
- 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2024 for the June 2024 salary.
II.
Was the Contract extended for the 2024/2025 season?
72. The above having been established, the Chamber turned its attention to the analysis as to
whether, as argued by the Player, the Contract was extended for the 2024/2025 season.
The Chamber underlined that only in such a case it would be further necessary to examine
any potential breach of contract and its consequences.
73. In doing so, the Chamber observed that, on the one hand, pursuant to the Contract Letter
the employment relationship would be valid as from 31 July 2024 until 30 June 2024. In
addition, the DRC noted that the “contract period” established the following: “1 year plus 1
year option”.
74. The Chamber further noted that, on the other hand, the only reference to an extension, a
renewal or an additional year in the Contract was included in Clause 1.2 and in the Schedule
thereof, where it is established, respectively, that:
“1.2. This document (including annexures and documents, policies and rules incorporated by
reference) constitutes the contract of employment between the Club and the footballer and the
footballer warrants that he has no expectation of renewal of this contract of employment”.
“R 60,000 net per month from 01 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 – opt”.
75. In view of the foregoing provisions, the Chamber determined that the Player was not
entitled to unilaterally extend the Contract. Firstly, the “contract period” of the Contract
Letter refers to the additional year of contract only as an “option”, without explicitly granting
the Player (nor the Club) the possibility to, unilaterally, make use of such option.
76. On the other hand, and without prejudice to the foregoing, the Contract concluded
between the Parties does not grant the Player the unilateral option to extend the Contract
either, but rather the opposite, as it is clearly manifested that the Player has no expectation
of renewal of the Contract. In fact, the Chamber noted that the Contract does not include
any extension option at all.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15191
77. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also noted that, as opposed to the Club’s
allegations, the Contract did not provide either a unilateral extension option in its favour.
In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Clause referred to by the Respondent in its
reply to the claim was not included in any of the contracts concluded between the Parties.
78. Accordingly, the Chamber found that in order for the extension or the renewal to be
triggered, it was not enough with one of the Parties notifying the other the unilateral
extension of the Contract, as no such right was provided thereof.
79. In addition, the Chamber determined that the fact that the Parties included in the Contract
the salary for the 2024/2025 season (where they also indicated “opt”.) does not imply that
the Player would be entitled to, unilaterally, extend the Contract, as such extension was
defined or agreed as an option and, as such, it was subject to the consent of the
counterparty.
80. Based on the above, and considering that the Contract was not extended beyond 30 June
2024, the Chamber concluded that it simply expired on such date, thereof without existing
any termination or breach by the Club. It follows from the foregoing that the Player’s claim
related to the breach of contract and its consequences must be rejected.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. 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. 16
REF. FPSD-15191
85. 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
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-15191
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Abdi Hassan Banda.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Richards Bay, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
ZAR 53,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of ZAR 3,000 as from 1 June 2024 until the date of
effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of ZAR 50,000 as from 1 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. 18
REF. FPSD-15191
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. 19