Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-8907
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 March 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mohamed
Boukassi Al-Mahdi
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Angela COLLINS (Australia), Member
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mohamed Boukassi Al-Mahdi, Algeria
Represented by Taaziz Football Law Agency
RESPONDENT:
Air Force, Iraq
Page 2
REF FPSD-8907
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 January 2022, the Algerian player, Mohamed Boukasi Al-Mahdi (hereinafter: the
player or the Claimant), and the Iraqi club, Air Force (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent), concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until
30 July 2022 (hereinafter: the employment contract).
2.
In accordance with clause 8 of the employment contract, the club undertook to pay the
player a total remuneration of USD 80,000, as follows:
“A. (35%) from value of contract payable once the player first payment;
B. (65%) of the value of the remaining contract is divided into monthly salaries for a
period of six months to be payable to the player”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
The First Claim
3.
On 22 June 2022, the player, represented by Mr Murtadha Basim Abdullah (hereinafter:
Mr Abdullah), lodged a first claim against the club in front of the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC), which was filed under ref. No. FPSD-6448 (hereinafter: the First Claim).
4.
Together with the abovementioned claim, the FIFA general secretariat was provided with
inter alia a power of attorney (hereinafter: the PoA) signed by the player and granting Mr
Abdullah the following powers, quoted verbatim:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.
“Drafting and keeping all necessary writings and correspondence;
Appointment of one of more arbitrators;
Request the reasons for any judicial / sports decisions or arbitral decisions;
Challenge any decision before any court or competent authority sport / judicial or
arbitration;
Settlement of the dispute amicably in accordance with the instructions of the party
that issued the instructions;
Appointing an alternate or assistant attorney;
Execution and/or enforcement of any sports, judicial or arbitration decision;
Collect, in the name and on behalf of the authorized person, any amount allocated
or owed in this respect.“
On 5 July 2022, the player was requested to complete his petition with additional
information / documentation. Nevertheless, as he failed to do so within the deadline
Page 3
REF FPSD-8907
granted by the FIFA general secretariat, the First Claim was closed cf. art. 18, par. 2 of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: Procedural Rules).
The Second Claim
6.
On 12 July 2022, the player, once again represented by Mr Abdullah, filed a second claim
against the club for the same outstanding amounts, which was filed under ref. No. FPSD6687 (hereinafter: the Second Claim).
7.
On 15 July 2022, the player was requested to complete his petition with additional
information / documentation. Nevertheless, as he failed to do so within the deadline
granted by the FIFA general secretariat, the Second Claim was also closed cf. art. 18, par.
2 of the Procedural Rules.
The Third Claim
8.
On 25 July 2022, the player, for the third time represented by Mr Abdullah, lodged another
claim against the claim, which was filed under ref. No. FPSD-6811 (hereinafter: the Third
Claim).
9.
On the same date, the relevant statement of claim and exhibits thereto were forwarded
to the Respondent for consideration and response.
10. On 18 August 2022, the submission-phase within the Third Claim was closed, in line with
art. 23 of the Procedural Rules. Subsequently, the parties exchanged correspondences
regarding the payment of the overdue amounts by the Respondent.
11. On 22 August 2022, the parties were informed that the case would be submitted to the
FIFA DRC for a formal decision.
12. On 25 August 2022 and before a decision was taken by the FIFA DRC, the Respondent
provided proof of having paid the relevant amounts to the player. Consequently, the
player was requested by the FIFA general secretariat to confirm whether such payment
was in fact received.
13. On 27 August 2022, the player, via Mr Abdullah, acknowledged receipt of the amounts
sought and requested the closure of the Third Claim. In parallel, a financial clearance was
allegedly signed by the player.
14. In September 2022, the player personally reached out to FIFA via email and telephone
and inter alia accused Mr Abdullah and the club of having forged his signature in the
financial clearance. He denied having received any payment, hence requested the Third
Claim to be resumed.
Page 4
REF FPSD-8907
15. On 21 September 2022, the FIFA general secretariat confirmed to the player that the Third
Claim had already been closed due to the settlement reached by and between the parties,
as informed by the player’s legal representative in those proceedings.
16. On 18 October 2022, the player – in this opportunity represented by the Fédération
Internationale des Associations de Footballeurs Professionnels (FIFPro) – put the club in
default and requested payment of USD 52,000 within ten days, to no avail.
The Fourth Claim
17. On 4 November 2022, the player, represented by FIFPro, filed a fourth claim in front of
the FIFA DRC, which was filed under ref. No. FPSD-8122 (hereinafter: the Fourth Claim).
Accordingly, the player requested to be awarded the same USD 52,000 as outstanding
remuneration. In the Fourth Claim there was no mention to the previous proceedings
before the FIFA DRC and/or the financial clearance supposedly signed by the parties.
18. On 8 November 2022, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Fourth
Claim and referred (i) to the three other claims lodged by the player before the FIFA DRC;
and (ii) to the settlement allegedly reached by the parties during the Third Claim.
Consequently, the player was informed that FIFA did not appear to be in a position to
reanalyse the matter.
The request for enforcement
19. On 12 January 2023, the player, represented by Taaziz Football Law Agency, filed a request
for enforcement of a decision before the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, which was filed
under ref. nos. FDD-13739 and FPSD-8843. Contextually, he referred to the First and the
Third Claims and requested the payment of the due amounts to be immediately
performed.
20. On the same date, i.e., 12 January 2023, the FIFA general secretariat informed the player
that no decision had been passed in any of the cited cases insofar as a settlement was
confirmed by the parties at the time. Consequently, the player was equally informed that
cases FDD-13739 and FPSD-8843 would be closed (cf. art. 18 of the Procedural Rules).
The claim at hand
21. On 16 January 2023, the player lodged the claim at hand in front of the FIFA DRC,
represented by Taaziz Football Law Agency.
22. In his claim, the player explained inter alia the following, in verbis:
Page 5
REF FPSD-8907
“[The club] broke the terms of the contract and unilaterally terminated the services of
[the player] and did not complete the payment of the remaining dues of [the player]
amounting to fifty-two thousand US dollars.
[The player] filed a complaint against [the club] to demand the remainder of the full
value of the contract because [the club] had unilaterally broken the contract.
The oldest [Mr Abdullah] (the former legal agent of [the player]) took up in this case
and he is of Iraqi nationality. During the course of the complaint procedures, to submit
a financial concessions to [the club] bearing a signature other than that of [the player]
(as stated in the video message sent to you in this case) so that the claimant against
[the club] dropped. Also, without the consent of [the player], knowing that the
authorization of contract from [the player] to [Mr Abdullah] does not give him the right
to sign on behalf of the Algerian player or to receive any sum of money in his place.
A paper containing the player’s bank account information was submitted, as stipulated
in the FIFA regulations, to be a document of the case, but [Mr Abdullah] did not send it
to FIFA.
FIFA instructions are clear in this case, which oblige the debtor party to transfer the
amounts to the bank account approved in the case and written on documents bearing
the FIFA logo.
Attached to you is a bank statement from the bank in which [the player] account is
located, stating that no financial transfer has been received from the club for the player.
We assure you that [the player] did not receive any money from [the club] after he
submitted the previous complaint, and that the complaint was closed to FIFA without
completing its well-known official procedures.
In conclusion:
I ask FIFA to file a new complaint against [the club] and oblige it to pay the rest of
the financial dues amounting to fifty-two thousand US dollars for [the player].
Considering the consensual settlement paper presented by [Mr Abdullah] the
attached copy is null and void, and void because it is incorrect and was made
without the approval of [the player], and because it was issued without an express
authorization that allows [Mr Abdullah] to receive the amounts on behalf of [the
player].
And because it is considered as someone who gives up someone else’s property to
someone who does not deserve it.
Page 6
REF FPSD-8907
We note that on the date of signing the clearance submitted by [the club], [the
player] was not present in Iraq, which confirms that the signature on the document
is not his signature, as [the player] says.
Punishment of [the club] because it violated the regulations and instructions of
FIFA, as it is supposed to transfer any amount in the case to the accounts officially
approved in the case and written on paper bearing the official FIFA logo.
And because ignoring this method leads to major problems between the opponents
Obligate [the club] to pay an amount of one hundred thousand dollars as
additional compensation for breaking the terms of the contract with [the player]”.
23. On 19 January 2023, the FIFA general secretariat requested the club to file its position as
to the claim at hand.
24. On 30 January 2021, the club filed its reply to the claim. Contextually, the club made
reference of the Third Claim and filed a copy of the financial clearance signed by the
player, as well as the communication sent to the parties by the FIFA general secretariat
confirming the closure of the case due to an amicable solution.
25. In particular, the club wrote as follows, in verbis:
“We would like to inform you that this complaint has already been considered before
your respected committee and was closed based on the resolution of the dispute
between the club and the player, and the financial settlement between the two parties
was reached, and the previous complaint numbered (FPSD-6811) was closed on August
29, 2022 for [the player], which includes the same subject of the current complaint. We
attach to you documents related to the previous complaint numbered (FPSD-6811)”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. 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 16 January 2023 and
submitted for decision on 7 March 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
October 2022 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.
Page 7
REF FPSD-8907
27. Subsequently, 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 (October 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 an Algerian player
and an Iraqi club.
28. 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 (October 2022 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 January 2023, the cited edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
29. 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
30. 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.
31. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact it pertains to a claim for outstanding remuneration
lodged by the player against the club in connection with the employment relationship
initiated between them in January 2022.
32. In this context and as departure point, the DRC recalled that the player had already lodged
several other claims in front both of the FIFA DRC and the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
(i.e., FPSD-6448, FPSD-6687, FPSD-6811, FPSD-8122, FDD-13739 and FPSD-8843). In
particular, the Chamber took due consideration that within the Third Claim (i.e., FPSD6811) and before a decision was passed by the FIFA DRC, the player via his authorized
legal representative at the time, Mr Abdullah, acknowledged receipt of the amounts
Page 8
REF FPSD-8907
sought and provided a copy of the financial clearance containing the signature of the
player.
33. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber observed that the player now challenges the
validity of such document and accuses Mr Abdullah of having forged his consent, reason
why he requests to be awarded the same monies. In parallel, the club disputes such
argumentation and argues that the remuneration claimed was already paid as confirmed
by the player’s representative (Mr Abdullah) in front of FIFA.
34. Against this background, the DRC turned its attention to the documentation on file and
found it decisive that:
•
In his statement of claim, the player expressly confirmed that Mr Abdullah was
his agent and authorized legal representative during the other proceedings in
front of the FIFA DRC and, especially, in the context of the Third Claim;
•
the PoA signed by the player and submitted to FIFA granted powers to Mr
Abdullah to inter alia settle disputes and collect monies on behalf of the player;
and
•
Mr Abdullah expressly acknowledged receipt of the amounts due by the club,
which were also support by the financial clearance including the signature of
the player.
35. In light of the above and from the documentation on file, the DRC acknowledged that the
player had validly authorized Mr Abdullah to act on his behalf, hence empowering him to
settle the matter – as occurred. Consequently, it was the Chamber’s view that any dispute
in connection with the alleged misrepresentation by Mr Abdullah could not be held
against the club, especially when considering that no proof of bad faith from the club’s
side was advanced by the player.
36. Finally, the DRC also recalled that FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide
upon matters of criminal law, such as the one of alleged falsified signatures of documents,
and that such affairs fall into jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority.
Thus, any allegation in this respect regarding by Mr Abdullah (with the involvement or not
of the club) was deemed to be outside of the scope of the Regulations.
37. In conclusion, the Chamber decided that the claim of the player should be rejected.
d. Costs
38. 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
Page 9
REF FPSD-8907
agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were
to be imposed on the parties.
39. 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.
Page 10
REF FPSD-8907
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mohamed Boukassi Al-Mahdi, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 11
REF FPSD-8907
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