Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11034
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 September 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Alpha Conteh
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), member
Laurel VAURASI (Fiji), member
CLAIMANT:
Hapoel Nir Ramat Hasharon, Israel
Represented by Boaz Sity
FIRST RESPONDENT:
Alpha Conteh, Sierra Leone
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Lokomotiv Plovdiv, Bulgaria
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11034
I. Facts of the case
1. On 30 January 2023, the Israeli club Hapoel Nir Ramat Hasharon (hereinafter: the Claimant) and
the Sierra Leonean player Alpha Conteh (hereinafter: the Player or the First Respondent) allegedly
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid until 31 May 2023.
2. On 27 February 2023, according to the information available in TMS Transfer reference:
658032 / 658435, the Player, the Sierra Leonean club Ibrahim FC and the Bulgarian club Loko
(hereinafter: Loko or the Second Respondent) agreed the transfer of the Player from Ibrahim FC to
Loko.
3. On the same date, the Player and Loko concluded an employment contract valid until 31
December 2023.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4. On 24 July 2023, 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
5. The Claimant states that after signing the Contract, “the Player (and his agent) was photographed
with an official shirt for the purpose of publication of his signing”.
6. The Claimant further states that “two days afterwards, suddenly, another “agent” on behalf of the
Player notified Ramat Hasharon that it needed to “deal” with him, and that the Player will not join
Ramat Hasharon if he is not paid. Afterwards, Ramat Hasharon found out that the Player immediately
engaged in an employment contract with Loko”
7. Based on the above, the Claimant deems that Player breached the Contract without just cause.
8. The Claimant requests compensation in the amount of ILS 300,000.
9. The Claimant filed the following requests for relief:
Claimant respectfully submits that its claim demonstrates the following key aspects:
1) The Player and Ramat Hasharon engaged in an employment contract for the remaining
duration of the 2022-2023 football season.
2) The Player breached the contract with Ramat Hasharon without just cause.
3) The Player immediately entered another employment contract with Loko, which essentially
terminated the contract with Ramat Hasharon.
4) Ramat Hasharon is entitled for compensation in the amount of NIS 300,000.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11034
b. Position of the First Respondent
10. Despite being invited to file his position, the First Respondent did not reply to FIFA.
c. Position of the Second Respondent
11. Despite being invited to file its position, the Second Respondent did not reply to FIFA.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as “the DRC” or “the
Chamber”) 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 24 July 2023 and submitted for
decision on 28 September 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023
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.
13. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (May 2023), it is competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Sierra Leonean player, an Israeli club and a Bulgarian club.
14. 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 (May 2023 edition) and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 24 July 2023, the May 2023 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. 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).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11034
c. Merits of the dispute
16. 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
17. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and
took note of the fact that the Claimant sustains that a contract was validly concluded and that the
respondents shall pay compensation.
18. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine if the Claimant is
entitled to any compensation.
19. Firstly, the Chamber observed that the evidence submitted is not extensive. The Claimant has
submitted the Contract, the validity of which has not been challenged by the Respondent.
However, the Claimant has not submitted any correspondence or default notices exchanged
between the parties, before or after the conclusion of the Contract.
20. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that based on the information available in TMS, the Claimant
never registered the Contract in TMS or requested the delivery of the International Transfer
Certificate (“ITC”).
21. Additionally, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant had not submitted any evidence of
requesting the Player to execute his obligations under the Contract, which had a short duration
of approximately four months. Moreover, the Chamber noticed that approximately 2 months
after the agreed expiry of the Contract the Claimant has filed the claim at hand.
22. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that approximately one month after the conclusion of the
Contract, the Respondent concluded the employment contract with Loko.
23. In view of the above, the Chamber wished to emphasize that the actions of both parties led the
members of the Chamber to conclude that from the parties’ behaviour, it can be determined that
none of them was interested in starting the execution of the Contract and mutually departed from
it.
24. Following the above line of reasoning, the members of the Chamber concluded that, since none
of the parties was sincerely interested in starting and continuing the employment relationship,
no compensation for breach of contract should be awarded to the Claimant.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11034
d. Costs
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11034
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Hapoel Nir Ramat Hasharon, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11034
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 Governing the Football Tribunal).
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
pg. 8