Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5524
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 June 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Guiaman Franck Laura Cocoa
BY:
Daan de Jong (Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
Guiaman Franck Laura Cocoa, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Mr Slim Boulasnem
RESPONDENT:
Kano Pillars FC, Nigeria
Represented by Ms Eby Emenike
Page 2
REF FPSD-5524
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 28 July 2020, the Ivorian player Guiaman Franck Laura Cocoa (hereinafter the Claimant or the
player) and the Nigerian club Kano Pillars FC (hereinafter the Respondent or the club) concluded
an employment agreement (hereinafter the Employment Agreement) valid until the end of the
season 2020/2023.
2.
According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Nigerian FA failed to define the season
dates for 2022/2023.
3.
The Claimant and the Respondent (hereinafter jointly referred to as the Parties), agreed upon the
following financial conditions:
−
−
−
4.
Basic wage of NGN 550,000 (Nigerian Naira) divided into monthly instalments between
August 2020 until the end of the season 2022/2023 (emphasis added);
Bonuses of NGN 25,000 for “home win” and “away draw”;
Bonuses of NGN 50,000 for “away win”.
On 8 September 2021, the Parties mutually agreed on termination agreement (hereinafter the
Termination Agreement), stipulating the following:
“1. Kano Pillars FC and player Frank Laura Cocoa have agreed to terminate their existing
contract mutually with effect from 8th September, 2021.
2. That the player Frank Laura Cocoa will continue receiving salary up till 31st December,
2021.
3. That player Frank Laura Cocoa is free to join any club of his choice.
4. That the player does not owe Kano Pillars FC any entitlement.”
5.
On 31 December 2021, the Respondent sent the following release letter to the Claimant:
“This is to inform you that Kano Pillars FC have released Mr GUIAMAN Franck Laura Cocoa to play
for any club of his choice. Note that Kano Pillars FC is not indebted to the player in any form.”
6.
In January 2022, the Claimant signed a new employment agreement (hereinafter the New
Employment Agreement) with the Rwandan club Gorilla FC, valid for a period of six months.
7.
The financial conditions of said New Employment Agreement were stipulated as follows: a salary
of RWF 800,000/month. Consequently, the value of the New Employment Agreement amounts to
RWF 4,800,000.
Page 3
REF FPSD-5524
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 20 March 2022, 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
9.
In his claim, the Claimant requested the amount of NGN 1,100,000, corresponding to the
outstanding salaries of July 2020 and August 2020 and the amount of NGN 9,900,000 as
compensation. In addition, the Claimant requested interest of 5% p.a. applicable as of the due
dates until the day of the effective payment. At last, the Claimant requested the amount of
EUR 5,000 as procedural costs.
10. The Claimant argued that the Respondent terminated the Employment Agreement without just
cause and, next to the two outstanding salaries, it shall be liable to pay the Claimant a
compensation of NGN 9,900,00 (i.e. residual value of the contract as from January 2022 until
July 2023, i.e. 18 x NGN 550,000).
b. Position of the Respondent
11. The Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant.
12. As to the allegedly outstanding salaries, the Respondent argued that “the Contract was signed on
28 July 2020 which was three days to the end of the month. Page 18, Clause 7.1 of The Contract
stipulated that salary payments will start from August 2020 and therefore there was no salary due
in July 2020.”
13. As to the salaries of August 2020, the Respondent alleged that “the Club has been unable to
provide a wage slip to verify that a salary payment was made to The Player in August 2020 but
strongly believes that it did. The Club secretary will check its database and try to locate a wage
slip corresponding to August 2020.”
14. Finally, the Respondent argued that “the Parties entered into a mutual agreement to terminate”,
in which the Parties stipulated that the Claimant “will continue to receive a salary until 31
December 2021.” In this respect, the Respondent argued that it “honoured this promise and
continued to pay The Player a salary until 31 December 2021.”
c. Final comments of the Claimant
15. The Claimant was requested by the FIFA administration to comment on the allegedly outstanding
salaries of July and August 2020, as well as the Termination Agreement.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5524
16. The Claimant did not dispute that he signed the Termination Agreement, nonetheless, he argued
that he “was obliged to sign the document under abusive conditions” and, consequently, that such
document shall be null and void.
17. As to the payment of the salary of August 2020, the Claimant alleged that by claiming that the said
payment was made, the Respondent acts in bad faith.
18. Finally, the Claimant reiterated its request for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
IV. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 20 March 2022 and submitted for
decision on 8 June 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
V. Subsequently, 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 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an
Ivorian player and a Nigerian club.
VI. Finally, 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. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (March 2022 edition) and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 20 March 2022, the March 2022 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
VII. 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).
Page 5
REF FPSD-5524
c. Merits of the dispute
23. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 the assessment of the
matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter
and took note of the fact that the Parties strongly dispute the payment of certain financial
obligations by the Respondent as per the contract, namely the salaries of July 2020 and
August 2020.
25. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his 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.
26. The Single Judge first noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the Parties.
27. As to the claim for the July 2020 salary, the Single Judge recalled that the Player only signed the
Employment Agreement at the end of the said month, i.e. on 28 July 2020, and, consequently,
that the Player did not provide any services in July 2020.
28. What is more, the Single Judge pointed to the wording of the Employment Agreement, which
established that the salaries were “divided into monthly instalments between August 2020 until
the end of the season 2022/2023”.
29. Considering the above, the Single Judge rejected the claim for the July 2020 salary for the lack of
contractual basis.
30. Turning his attention to the claim for the August 2020 salary, the Single Judge was of the opinion
that the Respondent has merely alleged that it made the respective payment, which does not
prove beyond doubt the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
Furthermore, no reasonable justification was presented by the Respondent for not having
complied with the terms of the contract.
31. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda, which
in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single
Page 6
REF FPSD-5524
Judge decided that the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts
deriving from the contract concluded between the parties, namely the salary of August 2020.
32. Finally, the Single Judge turned his attention to the allegations of the Claimant that he shall be
further entitled to compensation for termination of the employment relationship. On the other
hand, the Single Judge equally took note of the fact that the Respondent provided for a
Termination Agreement signed by the Parties, mutually terminating the contractual relationship.
33. The Single Judge duly noted that the Parties strongly dispute the validity of said Termination
Agreement.
34. In this context, the Single Judge started his analysis with the circumstances of the present case,
recalling that the respective Termination Agreement was provided in these proceedings by the
Respondent only, even though the Claimant acknowledged to have signed it. The latter then
argued that such document was signed under “abusive circumstances”, yet failed to provide any
evidence thereof (e.g. e-mails disputing the document when the Player left the Club or default
notices requesting the outstanding salaries).
35. In this respect, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the behaviour of the Claimant, i.e. alleging
“abusive circumstances” once confronted with the Termination Agreement within these
proceedings even though he prior had a knowledge thereof, only shows bad faith on the side of
the Claimant.
36. As to the substance of the Termination Agreement, the Single Judge recalled that the Player was
entitled to four additional monthly salaries, which he duly received. In the context of the present
case, the Single Judge deemed that such compensation was proportional and, therefore, the
validity of the document can be upheld.
37. In view of the above, the Single Judge rejected the claim of the Claimant regarding the
compensation due to the lack of contractual basis.
ii. Consequences
38. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences.
39. The Single Judge observed that the financial obligations deemed as outstanding in the present
case correspond to NGN 550,000.
40. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amount as from 1 September 2020 until the date of effective payment.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5524
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. 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 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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
46. 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, he decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
47. 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.
48. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 8
REF FPSD-5524
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Guiaman Franck Laura Cocoa, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kano Pillars FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
- NGN 550,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2020 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.
2.
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.
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
Page 9
REF FPSD-5524
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 10