Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-5207
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 December 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Ngnowa Hapmo Man-Ykre Dangmo
COMPOSITION:
Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil), Acting Deputy Chairperson
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), Member
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Ngnowa Hapmo Man-Ykre Dangmo, Cameroon
Represented by Mr Gauthier Bouchat
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Misr Makassa, Egypt
Represented by SC Studio Legale
INTERVENING PARTY:
AS de Kigali, Rwanda
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-5207
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 20 October 2021, the Cameroonian player, Mr Ngnowa Hapmo Man-Ykre Dangmo
(hereinafter: the player) and the Egyptian club, Misr Makassa (hereinafter: the club)
concluded an employment contract valid until 31 October 2023.
2.
In accordance with clause 2 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player, inter
alia, the following remuneration:
For the season 2021/2022:
-
EGP 50,000 on 1 November 2021;
EGP 200,000 in 10 instalments of EGP 20,000 each, payable on a monthly basis as
from 1 December 2021 until 1 September 2022;
EGP 50,000 on 1 October 2022.
For the season 2022/2023
-
EGP 50,000 on 1 November 2022;
EGP 200,000 in 10 instalments of EGP 20,000 each, payable on a monthly basis as
from 1 December 2022 until 1 September 2023;
EGP 50,000 on 1 October 2023.
3.
According to the said contractual clause, the parties agreed that the amounts therein
indicated are gross.
4.
Clause 4.9 of the contract reads as follows: “This contract is signed in (4) copies; one for the
club; one for the player; one for the Branch; one for the Egyptian Football Association. If the
layer does not have a copy of his employment contract, he can turn the club and/or the Egyptian
Football association to request a copy which will be provided within 3 working days of such
request”.
5.
By means of his letter dated 11 January 2022, the club put the player in default of payment,
thereby requesting the club to provide him with a copy of the signed contract and granting
the club a 15 days’ deadline to remedy its default in the amount of EGP 90,000.
6.
On 19 January 2022, the player contacted the Egyptian FA, requesting the latter to provide
him with a copy of the contract.
7.
On 24 January 2022, the club sent to the player a mutual termination agreement, whereby
the player would acknowledge having received all his financial dues and would waive his
right to claim anything from the club, but the player refused to conclude any such
agreement.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-5207
8.
By means of his notice dated 27 January 2022, the player unilaterally terminated the
contract, on the following grounds: the fact that the club failed to provide him with a copy
of the contract, the lack of payment of his remuneration in the amount of EGP 90,000 and
the club’s attempt to conclude a mutual termination agreement with the player on no valid
grounds.
9.
On the same date, the club provided the player with a copy of the signed contract.
10. On 3 February 2022, the club sent a letter to the player, informing the latter about the
following: that the club had duly proceeded with the payment of his remuneration, that the
contract was always available for the player and that the player failed to participate in
training session, thereby breaching the contract.
11. On the same date, the player replied to the said latter, stating that the payments indicated
by the club had not been performed.
12. On 4 February 2022, the club sent a new letter to the player, informing him that he had
received a banking cheque in the amount of EGP 125,000 on 5 December 2021 and that
the player even signed a payment receipt.
13. On the same date, the player replied thereto, stating that he had never received such
moneys and that the payment receipt provided by the club is forged.
14. On the same date, the club replied denying the player’s allegations that his signature on
the payment receipt was forged.
15. On 5 February 2022, the player sent a letter to the club, reiterating that his signature has
been forged and stressing that the fact that the club had not provided a copy of the cheque
allegedly cashed on 5 December 2021 shows that the allegations of the club are not true.
16. On the same date, the club replied thereto, denying the allegations of the player without
enclosing the relevant cheque.
17. On 6 February 2022, the player sent a new and final notice to the club, reiterating his
previous argumentation.
18. On 11 July 2022, the player signed a new contract with the Rwandan club, AS de Kigali, valid
as from 4 August 2022 until 30 June 2024, whereby the said club undertook to pay to the
player, inter alia, a sign-on fee of USD 15,000, equal to EGP 462,000 and a monthly salary
of RWF 1,200,000 NET, equal to EGP 22,175 NET.
19. Thus, during the overlapping period, i.e. between 4 August 2022 and 31 October 2022, the
player mitigated his damages in the following amount: EGP 310,450 (14*22,175 + 462,000=
772,450).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-5207
II. Proceedings before FIFA
a. Position of the player
20. On 21 February 2022, the player lodged a claim against the club before the Football
Tribunal, requesting to be awarded outstanding remuneration and compensation for
breach of contract in the total amount of EGP 600,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
corresponding due dates, broken down by the player as follows:
Outstanding remuneration: EGP 90,000
-
EGP 50,000 corresponding to the lump sum payable on 1 November 2021;
EGP 20,000 corresponding to the instalment due on 1 December 2021;
EGP 20,000 corresponding to the instalment due on 1 January 2022.
Compensation for breach of contract: EGP 510,000
-
EGP 510,000 as residual value of the contract, i.e. EGP 210,000 for the season
2021/2022 and EGP 300,000 for the season 2022/2023).
21. In his claim, the player explained that -following the receipt of his default notice dated 11
January 2022- the club informed him that “the contract has no remuneration” and that the
club would not allow the issuance of his International Transfer Certificate (ITC).
22. In addition, the player wished to stress that, despite the allegations of the club, the latter
did not pay him the amount of EGP 125,000 in December 2021 and that the club never
provided him with a cheque to cash the said amounts, which evidences that such cheque
was never issued and handed to the player.
23. What is more, the player referred to the payment receipt provided by the club and
reiterated that the signature stamped on it, which would correspond to his signature, has
been forged.
24. In this context, the player argued that he terminated the contract with just cause cf. arts.
14 and 14bis of the Regulations, insofar as:
-
The club failed to provide him with a signed copy of the contract, the club only doing
so after the player terminated the contract (art. 14 RSTP);
-
The club attempted to make him sign a mutual termination agreement to get rid of
the player at a time where the club was in default of payment (art. 14 RSTP);
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-5207
-
The club failed to pay him the amount of EGP 90,000, which exceeds the amount of
2 monthly salaries / instalments, the player having duly put the club in default of
payment providing the latter a 15 days’ deadline to remedy its default, to no avail
(art. 14bis RSTP).
b. Position and counterclaim of the club
25. In its reply, the club argued that the club duly paid to the player the amount of EGP 125,000
on 5 December 2021, which is confirmed by the relevant cheque handed to the player and
the payment receipt signed by the player.
26. Furthermore, the club held that -according to clause 2 of the contract- the amounts payable
to the player were gross and not net. In this context, the club referred to the following
national laws:
- Article 8 of the Income Tax Law No. 91/2005 as amended by the Law n. 26/2020;
- Article 14 of the Egyptian Tax Law no 91/2005;
- Article 48, Clause (H), point 7 of the Law n. 63/2010;
- Article 21 of the Law n. 83/2020 on the amendment to some provisions of Law no.
147/1984.
27. In this respect, the club held that, according to the joint application of the aforementioned
legal texts, the club had the obligation to retain up to 35.5% of the player’s salaries as tax
contributions.
28. The above being said, the club argued that it duly paid all the player’s financial dues, since
it was entitled to retain a part of the player’s remuneration to pay taxes. In this context, the
club held that the player terminated the contract without just cause on 27 January 2022.
29. Furthermore, the club denied the allegations of the player that the latter was not provided
with a copy of the contract and held that, in any case, he could have requested a copy
thereof from the Egyptian FA, where his contract was duly registered, cf. clause 4.9 of the
contract.
30. Moreover, the club held that, as from January 2022, the player started to not attend training
sessions without any valid reason.
31. Additionally, the club held that “after almost 30 days of Player’s absence, it might terminate
the [contract] for just cause in accordance with FIFA Regulations but it chose to continue the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-5207
working relationship because it deemed Mr. Dangmo a young talented player with great
potential”.
32. In this context, the club argued that it realized that the player wished to leave the club and
the club “not wanting to force an employee unhappy, contacted Mr. Dangmo to reach an
amicable solution and the player requested to leave the club”, but the player never signed the
mutual termination agreement provided by the club.
33. Finally, the club reiterated that it “has fulfilled with its contractual obligations while the player
committed several violations of the Employment Contract emphasizing an evident bad faith
attitude during the working relationship and, therefore, all Claimant’s requests must be rejected.
Notwithstanding, the Respondent has always tried to reach an amicable solution to any issues,
without success”.
34. In this context, deeming that the player terminated the contract without just cause, the
club lodged a counterclaim against the player, requesting the latter be ordered to pay:
1.) EGP 475,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the contract; or -subsidiary to the above- to condemn the player
to pay a compensation calculated by the DRC under its discretion and on the basis
of the principle of “specificity of sport”, plus 5% interest p.a. in any case as from 27
January 2022;
2.) EGP 66,950 as reimbursement of the amounts that were overpaid to the player,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 January 2022.
35. Subsidiary to the above, the club requested that: “in case the honourable DRC deems
appropriate award a compensation in favour of the Player - in the unlucky case the DRC deems
to upheld the Player’s allegation on the termination - such a compensation must be indicated
as GROSS with the Club’s right to deduct the taxes in Egypt of 22,5% + 10%+ 3%, i.e. a net amount
of 328,950 EGP”.
c. Player’s reply to counterclaim
36. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player rejected the club’s allegations, reiterated his
previous argumentation and stressed, inter alia, the following:
-
That the club did fail to provide him with a copy of the contract upon its signature
and that, despite the player having requested the club and the Egyptian FA to
provide him with a copy thereof, no such copy was ever sent to the player until
the contract was unilaterally terminated by the player;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-5207
-
That the allegations of the club that the mutual termination of the contract was
an initiative of the player due to his discontent at the club is simply not true;
-
That the payment receipt dated 5 January 2022 contains a forged signature, which
is confirmed by the fact that the club has failed to provide the original specimen
of the said document;
-
Should the amount of EGP 125,000 had been paid to the player, the club should
have paid the relevant taxes to the Egyptian Tax Authority, as per the contract, or
could have provided an extract from its bank account displaying that the relevant
amount was paid to the player, but the club has failed to demonstrate having
done so, which proves that such payment was never made;
-
That, should the said payment have been made, the mutual termination
agreement sent by the club to the player would have referred to the said event,
quad non;
-
That the arguments of the club concerning its entitlement to deduct different
percentages of the player’s remuneration in order to pay taxes must be rejected,
insofar as -in accordance with the laws provided by the club-: it is not clear which
party was obliged to make the tax payments, the club has not provided any
evidence of having paid taxes to the Egyptian Tax Authorities, the club has not
proven that the player is subject to the mentioned tax rates;
-
That the club has not discharged its burden to prove that the amount of EGP
90,000 was duly paid and, thus, the player did terminate the contract with just
cause on 27 January 2022.
d. Position of the player’s new club as to the counterclaim of the club
37. In its comments, the player’s new club maintained –inter alia– the following:
-
That it could not induce the player to breach the contract, insofar as the contract
at stake was terminated in January 2022 and the negotiations of the new contract
between AS Kigali and the player only started in July 2022, the said parties
concluding the new contract on 11 July 2022;
-
That any joint and several liability shall be excluded, given that neither the player
nor Misr Makassa never requested the intervention of AS Kigali, “let alone [did
they] file a claim against it”;
-
That the player did not breach the contract, insofar as the latter terminated the
contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the RSTP.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-5207
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. 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 22 February 2022 and
submitted for decision on 19 December 2022. 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.
39. Subsequently, the members of 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 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 a Cameroonian
player and an Egyptian club, with the intervention of a Rwandan club.
40. 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 22 February 2022, the August 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
41. 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
42. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-5207
43. 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
44. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter
and recalled that the player lodged a claim against the club and requests be awarded
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract from the club,
whereto the club lodged a counterclaim, requesting to be awarded the reimbursement of
amounts overpaid, as well as compensation for breach of contract from the player.
45. The above being said, the Chamber determined that the key question in the present case
is whether the player terminated the contract with just cause on 27 January 2022.
46. In order to find an answer to the said question, the DRC deemed it necessary to establish
which are the key events that have remained undisputed or that have been acknowledged
by both parties. In doing so, the Chamber mentioned the following events:
-
-
-
-
The parties concluded the contract, valid as from October 2021 until October
2023;
As per clause 2 of the contract, the remuneration due to the player is gross;
According to clause 4.3, the player should receive a copy of the contract and, in
any case, he could turn to the club or the FA to request a copy thereof, which
should be provided within 3 working days;
On 24 January 2022, the club sent a mutual termination agreement to the player,
whereby the player would acknowledge receipt of all his financial dues and would
waive any claim against the club, which the player did not sign;
On 27 January 2022, the player unilaterally terminated the contract on the
grounds that the club had failed to pay him the amount of EGP 90,000 and that
the club failed to provide him with the contract;
Following the player’s termination, the club provided the player with a copy of the
contract.
47. On the other hand, the Chamber observed that 3 key events were disputed by the parties.
In particular, the DRC referred to the following ones:
-
The club claims that, on 5 December 2021, it paid the amount of EGP 125,000 to
the player and provides a copy of a cheque and a payment receipt allegedly
signed by the player. Here below you will see the signature of the player on the
contract and the disputed signature stamped on the payment receipt:
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-5207
Contract’s signature
-
Payment receipts’ signature
The club claims that it overpaid the player and, thus, claims to be reimbursed the
amount that was wrongly paid, allegedly EGP 66,950;
That the club was entitled to deduct 35.5% of the player’s salaries as taxes.
48. In this context, the DRC deemed it appropriate to formulate the following key questions:
A.) Did the club meet its burden of proof concerning the payment of EGP 125,000 by
providing copies of the cheque and the payment receipt dated 5 December 2021?
49. In this respect, considering that: 1.) the player denies having signed the said payment
receipt; 2.) the player denies having received the amount of the cheque; and 3.) no evidence
to the contrary has been provided by the club in order to demonstrate that the amount
due to the player and indicated in the said cheques was actually paid to the player, the DRC
concluded that the club has not met its burden of proof concerning the performance of the
monetary transaction and, thus, it shall be considered that the payment of EGP 125,000
was not made.
B.) Did the player terminate the contract with just cause on 27 January 2022?
50. In this regard, the DRC observed that the player’s unilateral termination of the contract is
based on 3 different arguments: the non-delivery of the player’s contract, the lack of
payment of the amount of EGP 90,000 and the alleged bad faith of the club sending a
mutual termination agreement to the club stating that all financial dues were paid and
containing a waiver.
51. As for the non-delivery of the contract, the DRC underscored that it is the right of a
contracting party to receive a copy thereof. In this sense, the wording of clause 4.9 of the
contract already leads to the option or the assumption that a copy thereof was not
provided to the player and that the latter could ask the club or the FA to be provided with
the contract, which– in the opinion of the Chamber –is not acceptable. In addition,
continued the DRC, the said clause states that the club and / or the FA will –within a
deadline of 3 days and upon request from the player– provide him with a copy of the
contract.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-5207
52. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player has provided proof of having contacted
both, the club and the FA, requesting them to send a copy of the contract, to no avail. In
this regard, although it would be up to discussion whether this alone would entitle the
player to terminate the contract, underscored the Chamber, such an assessment is not
necessary, insofar as the following events –which also contributed to the termination of
the contract– need to also be considered.
53. Secondly, in connection with the lack of payment of the lump sum of EGP 50,000, due on 1
November 2021, as well as the 2 instalments of EGP 20,000 payable by 1 December 2021
and 1 January 2022, the Chamber noted that, by the date of termination of the contract, i.e.
27 January 2022, all of the said amounts were outstanding, considering also that the due
date for the payment of the monthly instalments was the first day of the relevant month.
54. Consequently, taking into account that the player put the club in default on 11 January
2022, requesting the club to proceed with the payment of amounts that were already
outstanding, i.e. EGP 90,000, and that the club failed to pay them within the 15 days’
deadline granted by the player, the DRC decided that the requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations were complied with, insofar as the amount of EGP 90,000 represents more
than 2 salaries of the fixed monthly income of the player, i.e. EGP 40,000. In this respect,
the Chamber wished to state that the amount of EGP 90,000 is the gross amount due as
per the contract, which equals EGP 58,050 net cf. reasoning concerning the tax deductions
(see paras. 59-62 infra).
55. What is more, continued the Chamber, although the club argues that it was the player’s
wish to leave the club, the latter has not provided any evidence in this regard and
considering that: 1.) the club sent the mutual termination agreement to the player on 24
January 2022, i.e. at a time where the player had already put the club in default of payment,
and 2.) that the terms of the said document are clearly in favour of the club (it containing a
full financial acknowledgement of the club’s debts and a waiver to lodge any contractualrelated claim), the DRC stated that the acts of the club shall also be considered when
determining the consequences of the dispute at hand.
56. In view of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that the player
terminated the contract with just cause on 27 January 2022 in accordance with art. 14bis
of the Regulations.
C.) Is the player entitled to a reimbursement of amounts overpaid?
57. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the club failed to provide any evidence of having
actually paid any amount to the player, left aside the checques provided by the club, which,
as ascertained supra, cannot discharge the club from its financial obligations towards the
player.
58. Thus, the DRC determined that all the claims of the club are rejected.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-5207
D.) Considering that clause 2 of the contract states that the amounts due to the player are
gross, can the percentages provided by the club be considered?
59. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the club has provided, within the scope of the
present proceedings, what seems to be complete versions of the national laws invoked, i.e.
Law No. 91/2005 as amended by the Law n. 26/2020, Egyptian Tax Law no 91/2005, Law n.
63/2010 and Law n. 83/2020 on the amendment to some provisions of Law n. 147/1984.
60. In view of the above, considering the legal texts referred, the allegations made by the club
and the wording of clause 2 of the contract, two of the members of the panel, Mr Mario
Flores Chemor (member) and Ms Livia Silva Kägi (Deputy Chairperson of the DRC) were
satisfied in determining that the club is entitled to deduct the percentage of 35.5% of the
player’s financial entitlements, on the following grounds:
-
A deduction of 22.5% of the player’s income shall be applied by the club cf. article
8 of the Income Tax Law No. 91/2005 as amended by the Law n. 26/2020;
-
A deduction of 10% of the player0s income shall be applied by the club cf. article
48, Clause (H), point 7 of the Law n. 63/2010;
-
A deduction of 3% of the player’s income shall be applied by the club cf. article 21
of the Law n. 83/2020.
61. On his part, Mr Johan van Gaalen (member) disagreed with the abovementioned reasoning
insofar as he considered that no tax deductions should be applied concerning the payment
of a remuneration that was actually not paid to the employee, the player, in casu. In
addition, Mr van Gaalen stressed that the player is currently residing in a different country
(Rwanda), where he will (most likely) be obliged to pay taxes upon receipt of the hereunder
awarded amount; reason why the present decision is a majority decision.
62. In addition, and in order to protect the player’s rights, the Chamber decided that the club
shall be ordered to provide the player with tax certificates concerning the payment of the
player’s remuneration that is hereunder awarded.
ii. Consequences
63. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
64. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, amounts to EGP 58,050 net,
corresponding to the outstanding remuneration due to the player by the date of
termination, i.e. the lump sum of EGP 50,000 gross payable by 1 November 2021 and the 2
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-5207
instalments of EGP 20,000 gross due on the 1st of December 2021 and on the 1st of January
2022, amounts from which we need to deduct 35.5% (90,000*64.5% = 58,050),
65. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
66. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
67. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
68. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
69. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EGP 510,000 gross, i.e. EGP 328,950 net (the residual value
of the contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
70. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-5207
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
71. Indeed, the player found employment with the Rwandan club, AS de Kigali. In accordance
with the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to fully mitigate his
damages by receiving – from his new club – the amount of EGP 772,450 (see para. 19 above)
during the overlapping period.
72. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations,
according to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly
salaries as additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at
stake be due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the
contract termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and
therefore decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
73. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EGP
64,500 on the following grounds: as per art. 17.1 lit. ii.) of the Regulations, in case the
termination of a contract by the player is motivated, inter alia, by the overdue payables due
to them, the Chamber will award additional compensation in an amount equal to 3 monthly
salaries (equal to fixed instalments), that can go up to 6 salaries in case of egregious
circumstances. In the present case, the Chamber noted that, in addition to the overdue
payables, the events that triggered the termination of the contract and that are of
particular importance are: 1.) the non-delivery of the contract to the player and 2.) the fact
that the club was perfectly aware that the player had not collected the cheques and still
raised such defence in bad faith. Thus, the DRC decided that these 2 events must trigger
the club’s obligation to pay 2 additional monthly salaries / fixed instalments to be added to
the regular 3 monthly salaries, reaching the amount of 5 additional salaries / fixed
instalments, which would amount to EGP 100,000 gross (corresponding to 5 monthly
instalments of EGP 20,000 each) and to EGP 64,500 net (EGP 100,000 – 35.5% = EGP 64,500).
74. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of EGP 64,500 net to the player (i.e. the net additional compensation as explained supra),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
75. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 21
February 2022, until the date of effective payment.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-5207
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
76. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
77. In this regard, the DRC 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.
78. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
79. 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.
80. The DRC 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
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-5207
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Ngnowa Hapmo Man-Ykre Dangmo, is
partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Misr Makassa, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the following amounts:
- EGP 58,050 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
On the amount of EGP 32,250, as from 2 November 2021 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of EGP 12,900, as from 2 December 2021 until the date of effective
payment;
On the amount of EGP 12,900, as from 2 January 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
- EGP 64,500 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
21 February 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to provide the player with tax certificates
concerning the payment of the amounts hereunder awarded.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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 / Counter-Claimant 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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-5207
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
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. 18