Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01178
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 April 2021,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Sékou Amadou Camara
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Tom is lav Kasalo (Croatia), member
Jérôm e Perlem uter (France), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Sékou Amadou Camara, Guinea
Represented by Mr Karim DJARAOUANE
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Difaa El Jadida, Morocco
INTERVENING PARTY:
FC Wil, Switzerland
Represented by Mr Sämi Meier
Page 2 of 9
REF 20-01178
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 12 January 2019, the player from Guinea, Sékou Amadou Camara (hereinafter: player or
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1) and the Moroccan club, Difaa El Jadida (hereinafter: club or
Respondent/Counter-Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as
from the date of signature until 30 June 2022.
2.
According to the contract, the club undertook to pay the player a monthly salary of USD 2,000 as
well as well as the following payments:
- USD 50,000 as partial sign-on fee after the arrival of the ITC/upon registration;
- USD 18,000 as partial sign-on fee on 20 June 2019.
3.
The contract further defined, inter alia, the following reference amounts for the “annual bonus”:
- USD 45,000 as “annual bonus” for the period until 30 October 2019;
- USD 45,000 as “annual bonus” for the period until 30 January 2020.
4.
Art. 15 of the contract reads as follows:
“En cas de contestation et/ou de litige né de l’exécution et/ou de l’interprétation des clauses du
présent contrat, les parties sont tenues de recourir à tous les moyens et procédures en vue d’un
règlement amiable du litige. En cas d’échec, le différend est soumis, par l’une ou l’autre partie, à la
chambre de résolution des litiges de la Fédération Royale Marocaine de Football. Les décisions de la
chambre de résolutions des litiges de FRMF sont susceptibles de recours conformément aux
dispositions des statuts et règlements de la FRMF“.
5.
On 11 June 2019, the player put the club in default and requested payment of USD 20,000 related
to a part of the sign-on fee.
6.
On 31 December 2019, the player put the club in default and requested payment of USD 87,781
related to outstanding salaries, a part of the sign-on fee as well as the first part of the annual bonus.
7.
On 2 June 2020, the player put the club in default and requested payment of USD 132,781 related
to outstanding salaries, a part of the sign-on fee as well as the annual bonus.
8.
On 29 June 2020, the player put the club in default and requested payment of USD 68,000 related
to outstanding salaries, a part of the sign-on fee as well as the annual bonus.
9.
On 7 August 2020, according to the club, the parties concluded a termination agreement, which
defined that the contract would end at the end of the season 2019/2020 against payment of USD
10,000 from the club to the player.
10.
On 26 August 2020, the club sent a draft of a transfer agreement to the Swiss club, FC Wil
(hereinafter: new club or Counter-Respondent 2).
11.
On 1 September 2020, the player and FC Wil concluded an employment contract valid as from the
date of signature until 30 June 2022. According to this contract, the player is entitled to a monthly
salary of CHF 4,100.
12.
On 2 September 2020, FC Wil requested the club to issue the TPO document regarding the transfer
of the player.
Page 3 of 9
REF 20-01178
13.
On 4 September 2020, the club replied to FC Wil that the player is under contract with the club and
invited the Swiss club to negotiate a possible transfer.
14.
According to information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 15 September 2020,
after the Moroccan FA failed to reply to the ITC-request, the player was provisionally registered with
FC Wil.
15.
On 18 August 2020, the player lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA and requested
payment of USD 96,955, as follows:
- USD 4,000 corresponding to the salaries of June and July 2020;
- USD 36,286 corresponding to the unpaid part of his signing bonus;
- USD 56,569 corresponding to unpaid performance bonuses.
16.
In his claim, he held that the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations and that he
had just cause to terminate the contract after having put the club in default.
17.
The player acknowledged receipt of payments in the amount of USD 31,714 as signing bonus, which
results in his entitlement of USD 36,286 (USD 68,000-USD 31,714).
18.
Furthermore, the player held that the annual bonus is a performance bonus related to the number of
appearances. In this regard, he submitted the Regulations of the FMRF and documentation
corroborating his calculation as follows:
- For the period until 30 October 2019: 6 match appearances out of a total of 7, i.e. 85.71% of
USD 45,000, which leads to USD 38,569.
- For the period until 30 January 2020: 4 match appearances out of a total of 10, i.e. 40% of USD
45,000, which leads to USD 18,000.
19.
According to the player, such annual bonus remained unpaid.
20.
In its reply to the claim, the club rejected the player’s claim and lodged a counterclaim against the
player and his new club. The club requested payment of the following monies:
- USD 516,000 as compensation for breach of contract from the player;
- USD 1,000,000 “indemnification” from the new club.
21.
Furthermore, the club pointed out that the player should have “first go the NDRC in Morocco before
go to FIFA” as agreed in the contract.
22.
Moreover, the club held that it remitted the player’s salaries related to June and July 2020.
23.
Additionally, the club held that the player is subject to a disciplinary proceeding in which he was fined
with MAD 2,000,000.
24.
The club further argued that it concluded a termination agreement with the player, but that “in spite
of the amicable termination, the club has continued to advance funds to the player on the basis of
the amount negotiated at the time of the amicable termination”.
25.
In reply to the counter-claim, the player refuted the club’s allegations and requested to dismiss the
counterclaim.
Page 4 of 9
REF 20-01178
26.
The player acknowledged having received the salaries of June and July 2020 and therefore reiterated
his claim pertaining the amount of USD 92,955 related to the signing-fee and the annual bonuses.
27.
Furthermore, the player denied having signed the amicable termination dated 7 August, submitted
by the club and held that his signature was forged. In this regard, he submitted an expert report of a
graphologist who concluded that the signature on this document was indeed forged.
28.
The player pointed out that the club acted in contradiction.
29.
Moreover, he maintained that the club failed to dispute the amounts claimed by him in relation to
the signing fee and the annual bonus.
30.
In reply to the counterclaim, FC Wil rejected such claim and endorsed the player’s position.
31.
According to the new club, the player had already terminated the contract with the club before
signing the contract with FC Wil.
32.
The new club pointed out that the club was in contradiction when stating that the player’s contract
was mutually terminated while asserting that he was still under contract with them in correspondence
with FC Wil.
33.
Furthermore, the new club held that the counterclaim was not substantiated.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
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 submitted to FIFA on 18 August 2020 and submitted for decision on 8 April 2021. Taking
into account the wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the June 2020 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension.
3.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of
the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021 edition), and considering that the
claim was lodged on 18 August 2020, the June 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation
Page 5 of 9
REF 20-01178
submitted by the parties. 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art.
6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to
the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the
Transfer Matching System (TMS).
5.
Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the
present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par.
3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
6.
First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 12 January 2019, the player and the
club had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of its signature until 30 June 2022.
7.
Furthermore, the members of the DRC took note of the player’s claim for outstanding remuneration
in the amount of USD 92,955, after having acknowledged receipt of his salaries related to June and
July 2020. The claimed amount of the player corresponds to a part of his signing bonus and to
performance bonuses.
8.
The Chamber duly noted that the club, on the other hand, rejected such claim, alleged that a
termination agreement was concluded and requested compensation for breach of contract by the
player and his new club.
9.
In turn, the DRC acknowledged that the player rejected such counterclaim. He denied having
concluded a termination agreement with the club and held that his signature on this document was
forged.
10.
Moreover, the Chamber noted the position of the player’s new club, rejecting the counter-claim and
endorsing the player’s position.
11.
Having considered the diverging position of the parties, the members of the DRC concluded that, first
and foremost, and before entering into any other consideration, they should examine the validity of
the alleged termination agreement dated 7 August 2020.
12.
The Chamber took notice of the club’s argumentation that a termination agreement was concluded,
but noted that the club acted in contradiction by claiming a transfer fee of the new club. The DRC
further noted that the player disputed the termination agreement and held that his signature was
forged.
13.
At this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding
bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified
signature or document, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national
criminal authority.
14.
However, due to the very specific circumstances in the case at hand, taking into account that the
player contested his signature on the termination agreement and especially considering the
contradictory behaviour of the club, the Chamber decided not to take into account the alleged
termination agreement and therefore reject the club’s argument in this regard.
Page 6 of 9
REF 20-01178
15.
Subsequently, in accordance with the previous consideration, the Chamber established that the
contract was not terminated on 7 August 2020 and as there is no formal termination notice on file,
the Chamber had to examine when the contract was indeed terminated. Consequently, taking into
consideration the Chamber’s constant practice in similar matters where there has been no written
notice of termination, that the contract is to be considered terminated on the date of the player’s
claim in front of FIFA, i.e. 18 August 2020.
16.
Moreover, the Chamber turned its attention to the player’s alleged outstanding remuneration and
noted that it remained uncontested by the club that such amount was in fact remitted. The club failed
to submit any proof that it remitted the amounts claimed, apart from the salaries of June and July
2020, which were acknowledged by the player. Due to the outstanding remuneration undisputedly
due to the player, taking into account the different default notices, the Chamber concluded that the
player had just cause to terminate the contract on 18 August 2020. The DRC further noted that the
player did not request compensation for breach of contract.
17.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber established that the club, in principle,
is liable to pay the claimed remuneration to the player.
18.
Consequently, the members of the Chamber decided to partially accept the player’s claim and that,
in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the club is liable to pay to the
player outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 92,855, as part of the signing-fee and
annual bonuses.
19.
Additionally, in line with consideration above, the DRC rejected the club’s counterclaim for breach of
contract.
20.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber referred
to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
21.
In this regard, the Chamber pointed out 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 and for the maximum duration of three entire
and consecutive registration periods.
22.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the club does not pay
the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player, following the
notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the club, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the club in accordance with art.
24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
23.
Finally, 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. 24bis par. 3 of the
Regulations.
Page 7 of 9
REF 20-01178
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Sékou Amadou Camara, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Difaa El Jadida, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amounts:
- USD 92,855 as outstanding remuneration;
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent
of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
6.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in
accordance with this decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the
official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant / CounterRespondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the following
consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban
mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount
is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
REF 20-01178
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 9 of 9