DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18676
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player
Eze Emeka Christian
BY:
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium)
CLAIMANT:
Eze Emeka Christian, Nigeria
Represented by Mr Hamza Abd El-Wahab
RESPONDENT:
Almasry FC, Egypt
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18676
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 January 2020, the Nigerian player Eze Emeka Christian (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Egyptian club Al-Masry (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until the
end of the 2023/2024 season (i.e., for five sporting seasons) (cf. TMS 31 May 2024).
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following
remuneration during the final season of the Contract (presumably in monthly instalments
between August 2023 and May 2024, cf. the official season dates in TMS):
“Fifth season 2023/2024 an amount of USD 333,334 divided as follows:
The first instalment an amount of:
120,430 only
The second instalment an amount of:
17,742 only
The third instalment an amount of:
17,742 only
The fourth instalment an amount of:
17,742 only
The fifth instalment an amount of:
17,742 only
The sixth instalment an amount of:
17,742 only
The seventh instalment an amount of:
17,742 only
The eighth instalment an amount of:
17,742 only
The ninth instalment an amount of:
17,742 only
The tenth instalment an amount of:
70,968 only”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18676
3.
Furthermore, the parties foresaw the following condition in the Contract:
“The player doesn’t deserve the value of 25% (the last instalment) of each season without
participation of 75% or more of the total matches of the season.”
4.
On 9 February 2025, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
of USD 70,968, corresponding to the final instalment under the Contract for the 2023/2024
season, setting a 15 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.
5.
On 26 February 2025, the Claimant once again put the Respondent in default concerning
the above amount, granting a second deadline of 7 days.
6.
At an unclear date, the Respondent replied to the default notice, informing the Claimant
that, since he had not played in at least 75% of matches, he was not entitled to receive the
last instalment of USD 70,968
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 19 March 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
8.
In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent failed to pay him the last instalment of
USD 70,968 under the Contract.
9.
The Claimant elaborated that the clause stipulating the condition for him to play 75% of all
matches to receive his full salary is potestative, as his participation in official matches is
entirely at the Respondent’s discretion.
10. Thus, the Claimant asserted that the clause should be disregarded and the outstanding
amount should be paid in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda.
11. Consequently, the Claimant requested outstanding remuneration of USD 70,968 plus
interest as from 1 June 2024 until the date of effective payment
b. Reply of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Respondent largely recalled the facts of the case, however, in defence of
the raised arguments by the Claimant, only shortly argued that the Claimant freely
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18676
accepted the clause in question, and that, apart from the last instalment (i.e., the one at
stake), the Respondent complied with its financial obligations.
13. Consequently, the Respondent requested for the claim to be rejected.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18676
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 19 March 2025 and submitted for
decision on 25 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January
2025 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.
15. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 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 Nigerian player and an Egyptian club.
16. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
18. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18676
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the obligation of the Respondent to pay the final instalment of
the Contract to the Claimant, in the amount of USD 70,968.
20. In this sense, the Single Judge confirmed that the non-payment thereof between the parties
remained undisputed, however, the obligation itself was challenged by the Respondent.
21. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether the
Respondent had a valid justification for defaulting on the disputed amount.
22. According to the player, the Single Judge recalled, the amount was guaranteed under the
Contract, and the clause foreseeing that such amount would no longer be payable in case
the Claimant participated in less than 75% of the official matches in the relevant season
was potestative and abusive.
23. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Claimant freely agreed to have his
final salary instalment only paid on the condition that he would play 75% of all matches
that season.
24. At this stage, the Single Judge recalled the wording of the relevant clause:
“The player doesn’t deserve the value of 25% (the last instalment) of each season without
participation of 75% or more of the total matches of the season(…).”
25. Having analysed the wording of the above clause, the Single Judge deemed that it was
indeed potestative, since it made a guaranteed payment of salaries conditional upon the
performance of obligations that are entirely within the control of the club.
26. The Single Judge emphasised that, unlike a performance-based bonus, which is in addition
to the monthly salary and acts as an incentive, the basic remuneration of the Claimant
should not be subject to such provisions that can permit the counter-party (i.e. the
Respondent) unilaterally decide whether the player is entitled to it, or not.
27. Consequently, the Single Judge held that the Claimant should have received payment of
the last instalment at the end of the final month of the Contract, i.e., 31 May 2024.
28. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided to award the player USD 70,968, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from
1 June 2024 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18676
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
29. The Single Judge then referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned, in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
30. To this end, the Single Judge confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted
the Respondent with at least 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
31. Accordingly, the Single Judge also confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment without a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in
art. 12bis of the Regulations were met in the case at hand.
32. The Single Judge further established that, by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations
the Single Judge has competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above,
and bearing in mind that this is the first offense by the Respondent within the last two
years, the Single Judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with
art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
33. The Single Judge also highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty, in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
34. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with his 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.
35. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
36. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18676
37. 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.
38. The Single Judge 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
39. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
40. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
41. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18676
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Eze Emeka Christian, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Almasry FC, must pay to the Claimant USD 70,968 as outstanding
remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
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 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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18676
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 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. 11