Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4133
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 April 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Rami
Bedoui
BY:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairperson
Angela Collins (Australia), member
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi (Qatar), member
CLAIMANT:
Rami Bedoui, Tunisia
Represented by Ali Abbes and Mohamed Rokbani
RESPONDENT:
ALMASRY F.C., Egypt
Represented by Nasr Eldin Azzam
Page 2
REF FPSD-4133
I.
Facts of the case
1. On 30 July 2021, the Tunisian player, Rami Bedoui (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the
Egyptian club, Almasry F.C. (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract
(hereinafter the Contract) valid for three seasons, as from 25 September 2021 until 31 May
2024.
2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant remuneration as follows:
a. USD 180,000 for the 2021/2022 season;
b. USD 190,000 for the 2022/2023 season;
c. USD 200,000 for the 2023/2024 season.
3. On 15 August 2021, the Claimant states to have travelled to Egypt on a temporary visa and a
flight arranged by the Respondent, and whilst there, “after the accomplishment of all
administrative procedures and signing all officials’ documentations, (the Claimant) took a
presentation photo with the members of the (Respondent’s) Board.”
4. On 17 August 2021, the Claimant returned to Tunisia. Following this date, the Claimant did
not receive any information as to the alleged Contract they had signed, and attempted to
contact the Respondent on numerous occasions, to no avail.
5. On 25 September 2021, the Respondent announced its new signings, amongst which the
Claimant had not been included.
6. On 27 September 2021, the Claimant sent a notice to the Respondent, by means of which he
requested the Respondent to send him a visa to allow him to work in Egypt, as well as a flight
ticket to allow the player to join the team to start his work as a professional player, granting
the Respondent with a deadline until 29 September 2021 at 6h:00 PM, failing which he would
consider the behaviour of the Respondent “as a serious lack of interest to the (Claimant) and
a breach of the contract without just cause from (the Respondent’s) side.”
7. On 30 September 2021, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent in which he reiterated
his request and extended the Respondent’s deadline to comply therewith until 3 October
2021.
8. On 3 October 2021, the Respondent replied, arguing that:
a. There was no final binding agreement signed between the Claimant and the
Respondent;
b. The Respondent never sent any flight tickets to the Claimant;
c. The Claimant had discussed potential agreement with the Respondent without
reaching a final agreement at the end or approval from the Respondent.
Page 3
REF FPSD-4133
9. On 4 October 2021, the Claimant sent an email in reply to the Respondent, in which he
outlined that he considers the behaviour of the Respondent “a breach of the agreement
signed by both parties without just cause” and that he will “submit a claim against (the
Respondent) before FIFA DRC to claim compensation and sportive sanctions for breach of
the contract without just cause”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 14 October 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
11. According to the Claimant, the Respondent breached the Contract signed on 30 July 2021
without just cause.
12. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
a. Compensation in the total amount of USD 570,000, corresponding to the full value of
the Contract;
b. Interest at the standard rate of 5% p.a. as from the date of termination, 3 October
2021, until the date of effective payment;
c. Sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent
b. Position of the Respondent
13. According to the Respondent, the Contract under which the Claimant is requesting
compensation, was never valid or enforceable.
14. The Respondent argues that “there is no evidence that (the Respondent) sent this alleged offer
officially to (the Claimant) by its official ways of communication” and that “there is no
evidence that the player accepted the alleged offer and sent it to the club by its official means
of communication as the first contact between the club and the player was when the player
sent his notice on the 27 September 2021 after realizing that the club completed transfers
with other players”.
15. Moreover, the Respondent argues that the alleged Contract signed on 30 July 2021 “was not
a complete contract that fulfill all the essential and required terms, formalities and rules
approved by the EFA as it is the only official way by which Egyptian football clubs affiliated
Page 4
REF FPSD-4133
to the Egyptian football association conclude employment contracts with professional football
players”.
16. Additionally, the Respondent argues that it never provided a flight ticket and/or assistance in
the form of a temporary visa to the Claimant, and that the latter “didn’t bring any proof that
these tickets and visa were given to (him) by (the Respondent), nor that the administrative
procedures and the official documents (the only official document is the official letter head
of the Egyptian football association) were completed by (the Respondent)”.
17. Lastly, the Respondent outlined that “not only no agreement hasn’t been reached between
the two parties but also (the Claimant) has violated his obligation to be at the disposal of (the
Respondent) and to supply (the latter) with all the necessary information to facilitate its task
to prepare his work permit if an agreement was to be concluded.”
18. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
a. To fully reject the Claimant’s claims;
b. To consider that the Claimant has no legitimate interest to lodge the Claim against
(the Respondent);
c. To establish that the Respondent shall not pay any sum or compensation of
whatsoever kind related to the Claimant’s claims;
d. To consider that the Contract is null and void;
e. Alternatively, if it is deemed that the Player is entitled to receive any compensation,
that this amount is subject to mitigation on the Claimant’s part by signing a new
contract and the due taxes and fees according to the Egyptian Laws;
f. That the Claimant bears all and any procedural and legal costs arising out of the
present dispute.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. 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 14 October 2021 and submitted for decision
on 21 April 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 edition of
Page 5
REF FPSD-4133
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.
20. 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 Tunisian player and
an Egyptian club.
21. 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 14 October 2021, the August 2021 edition,
in force on the date of claim, of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
22. 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
23. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. 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 whether the Contract which was
allegedly signed on 30 July 2021 was valid, and if so, what the consequences of such
circumstance would be.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4133
25. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber noted that the parties’ first fundamental
disagreement is whether the document allegedly concluded between the parties on 30 July
2021 can be considered as a valid and binding employment contract.
26. First of all, the members of the Chamber deemed that it was of particular significance to
establish that the Respondent did not deny that it entered into negotiations with the
Claimant, and in fact even confirmed that it had discussed a potential agreement with the
Claimant on several occasions, and that only a “final agreement” had not been concluded
with the Claimant.
27. Furthermore, the Chamber started by recalling its well-established jurisprudence which
dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding,
apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the
essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their
role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the
employer to the employee.
28. Turning to the substance of the matter at hand, more precisely, to the offer on file, the
members of the Chamber noted that all such elements were included in the document filed
by the Claimant. In other words, the Chamber understood that the legal document concluded
by the parties on 30 July 2021 (i.e. the offer) indeed included all the relevant information at
the basis of an employment relationship between the contractual parties. Specifically, the
document contains the name of the parties as well as their signatures, the duration of the
employment relationship and the agreed obligations of the parties, in particular the
remuneration owed to the Claimant for his services.
29. As a result, the Chamber deemed that the offer signed on 30 July 2021 between the parties
clearly represented the basis of an employment relationship, containing all the essential
elements of an employment contract, thereby representing a valid and legally binding
employment agreement that created mutual obligations for the parties, which shall be
considered in the case at stake as the contractual basis of the present dispute.
30. In this context, the Chamber determined that the Respondent, by failing to start the execution
of the contract, to facilitate the Claimant in starting his employment and outright denying
the validity of any contractual relationship, breached the Contract signed between the parties
on 30 July 2021 without just cause. As a result the Claimant is in principle entitled to
outstanding remuneration, if any, and compensation for breach of contract.
ii. Consequences
31. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
Page 7
REF FPSD-4133
32. The Chamber observed that the Claimant had no outstanding remuneration at the time of the
claim, given the fact that the Respondent never recognised the validity of the Contract and
that the execution of the Contract had not started at all.
33. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club 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, the specificity of sport 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 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.
34. 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. In this regard, the Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
35. 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. The Chamber recalled that said
provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
36. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with
the calculation of the monies payable to the player 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 USD 570,000 (i.e. the full value of the Contract) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
37. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player 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 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.
38. Indeed, the player found employment with Club Africain, Tunisia. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to TND 10,000 per month. Therefore,
the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of TND
Page 8
REF FPSD-4133
175,483.87 (approximately USD 57,139.54), that is, 17 times TND 10,000 plus the pro rata
part of the salary for the month of January 2022 during which the Claimant signed the new
employment contract (17/31 days).
39. 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 contract termination did not
take place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that
the player shall not receive additional compensation.
40. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD
512,860.46 to the player (i.e. USD 570,000 minus USD 57,139.54), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the
present matter.
41. Lastly, 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 player interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 October 2022, the date of the claim lodged before the Football
Tribunal, until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
Page 9
REF FPSD-4133
45. 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.
46. 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
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 10
REF FPSD-4133
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Rami Bedoui, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, ALMASRY F.C., has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- USD 512,860.46 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 14 October 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5. Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
▪
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration 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.
6. 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.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 11
REF FPSD-4133
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 12