Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01464
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 May 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Anice Badri
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Al Ittihad, Saudi Arabia
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Anice Badri, Tunisia
INTERVENING PARTY:
ES Tunis, Tunisia
Page 2 of 15
REF 20-01464
I.
Facts
1.
On 14 January 2020, the parties concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2022.
2.
The contract provided the following financial terms:
sign on fee
200.000 USD
will be paid no later than 25/01/2020
Monthly Salary from the period 200.000 USD
14/01/2020 to 30/06/2020
Monthly Salary from the period 166.666 USD
01/07/2020 to 30/06/2021
Monthly Salary from the period 183.333 USD
01/07/2021 to 30/0612022
Duration of the contract in
30 Months
months
5.600.000 USD
The total remuneration
regarding basic wage
(Number)
Five Million and sixty thousand hundred US Dollars
The total remuneration
regarding basic wage (Writing NET
)
-200.000 USD NET For winning the Saudi
Benefits
Professional League.
-80.000 USD NET for winning the King Cup.
-100.000 USD NET for winning the Arabian Cup.
-100.000 USD NET for winning the Asian Champion
league
100.000 USD NET upon the first team achieves the
2nd or the 3rd position at the end of the season.
50.000 USD NET upon the player make total (assist or
score 20 goals) at the end of the season.
3. On 2 February 2020, the parties signed an amendment to the contract.
4. On 13 April 2020, the club sent a notice to its employees, informing them of the following:
"The COVID-19 has affected all clubs financially including Al Ittihad SFC. The suspension of
sport activities as described earlier adversely impacted the club resulting in losses of revenue
streams such as the tickets sales, payments from sponsors, TV rights and many others. As such,
the club is currently unable to continue the payments of the monthly salaries and other
payments as expected. One-to-one emails or phone call may be communicated with you to
explain more on basis of individual employment contracts."
5. On 3 June 2020, the player sent a default notice requesting the payment, within 10 days, of
“the February, March, April and May salary instalments of 200.000 USD net each, representing
a global amount remaining unpaid of 800.000 USD net.”
Page 3 of 15
REF 20-01464
6. On 27 June 2020, the club issued an order deducting 15% of the player’s salary for his failure
to train on the same date.
7. On 4 September 2020, the player sent a new default notice requesting the amount of 777.756
USD net (245.756 + 532.000) within 15 days.
8. According to the club, on 19 September 2020, it paid the player’s salary for June and July 2020
9. In support of this allegation, the club attached a document two documents (Exhibit C-16 to
the club’s claim) written mainly in Arabic, containing, inter alia, the following information:
- USD 80,804 – 23/09/2020 23:20
- USD 166,666 – 23/09/2020 23:20
10. On 22 September 2020, the player sent a termination letter indicating the following:
“As you know, I have been facing many unpaid salaries from -the Club since February 2020 .
As a result, and through the intermediary of my lawyer, a first formal notice was sent to the
Club on June 3rd, 2020 to pay me the sum of 800,000 USD, representing the unpaid salaries
for the months of February, March, April and May.
Unfortunately, you have only partially performed, and 245,756 USD remained unpaid.
However, I have also not been paid from my salaries for the months of June, July and August,
which generated a new formal notice dated September 4th, 2020 to pay me the total amount
of 777,756 USD (532,000 USD + 245,756 USD).
Once again, you have failed to comply with your contractual requirements.
In this context, and as allowed by the 14 bis Article of FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, I inform you that I break, without delay, the employment contract with
just cause for outstanding salaries due to the exclusive fault of the Club as a result of its
serious and repeated breaches of its contractual obligations.
Finally, I inform you that I will assert my rights before the FIFA's Dispute Resolution
Chamber.”
11. On 25 September 2020, the player signed a document in the club’s letterhead with the
following contents:
“I am the player / ANICE SADRI, a Professional player at Al-lttihad Club, as the car key was
handed over (…)
As well as the handover of my key housing during the period of residence professional club I
do not have any obligation or custody of the club.”
12. On 26 September 2020, the club replied as follows:
“Therefore, based on the guidance and directions of these authorities, as you know and
as we always discussed with you, during the suspension of national competitions, your
salaries for the season 2019/2020 were paid as follows:
- March 2020 - 75% paid/ 25% reduction;
- April 2020- 50% paid/ 50% reduction;
- May 2020 - 50% paid/ 50% reduction;
- June 2020 - 50% paid/ 50% reduction;
- July 2020 - 100% paid/ no reduction anymore.
(…)
we do not understand your reason to terminate your contract and we think this termination
was not issued in good faith at all.”
Page 4 of 15
REF 20-01464
13. The player concluded a contract with the Tunisian club, ES Tunis, valid as from 18 January
2021 until 30 June 2021, according to which he was entitled to a salary TND (Tunisian Dinar)
49,650 per month (approx. USD 18,000 – the value of the contract is estimated as USD 99,000,
i.e. 18,000*5.5).
14. On 13 October 2020, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club and requested the
payment of the following amounts, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 September 2022:
USD 634,412 as outstanding remuneration, detailed as follows:
o USD 245,756, corresponding to the balance of the salaries comprised between February
until May 2020;
o USD 113,196, corresponding to the remaining part of the salary of June 2020;
o USD 166,666, corresponding to the salary of August 2020;
o USD 105,555, corresponding to the pro rat a salary of September 2020 (from 1 until 19
September)
o USD 3,239 as housing costs from 14 until 22 September 2020
USD 3,761,101, as compensation, detailed as follows:
o USD 61,111 for the balance of September 2020 ;
o USD 1,499,994 for the salaries between October 2020 and June 2021;
o USD 2,199,996 for the salaries between July 2021 and June 2022;
The player further requested the payment of the following amounts:
o USD 87,500, as housing costs;
o USD 130,644, for the rental costs of a car between October 2020 until June 2022.
15. On 8 October 2020, the club lodged a claim before FIFA against the player for breach of
contract without just cause.
16. In the opinion of the club, “it is a crystal clear case of a termination without just cause: The
Player pre- tended (or hoped) that the prerequisites of art. 14bis RSTP were fulfilled (so that
he could ignore his contractual obligations), while the reality is totally different: The Player
looked for a quick and fast exit from his contract, in breach of contractual stability and
against good faith.”
17. The club explained in this respect that the only salaries that remained outstanding at the time
the player sent the formal notice, i.e. on 4 September 2020, were the following:
- June 2020 – 50% overdue (50% reduction);
- July 2020 – 100% overdue;
- August 2020 – 100% overdue.
18. The club explained that, with regard to the salaries of March 2020, April 2020, May 2020 and
June 2020, there is no basis at all on which the player could ask for the payment of the "full"
amounts, given that the applied reductions were made in full compliance with national and
international standards, namely the FIFA and SAFF Guidelines.
19. The club argued that it made its best efforts to find a solution to amend the key terms and
conditions of their agreements, but that it was forced to take a unilateral decision in this
specific case.
20. The club further argued that the suspension of the championship also had an economic
impact, and underlined that “all revenue streams virtually ceased to exist. The club was no
Page 5 of 15
REF 20-01464
longer able to generate any significant income and to provide work for its staff. Amongst a
series of austerity measures, the Government also suspended funding to sports clubs, which
caused further financial damage.”
21. In view of the above, the club requesting the payment of the total amount of USD 8,224,986,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 September 2020:
o USD 525,000 for the non-amortized transfer fee;
o USD 3,000,000 for the lost value of the Player;
o USD 3,699,990 for the lost services of the Player;
o USD 999,996 for the aggravated circumstances considered under the "specificity of sport".
22. In his reply to the claim of the club, the player explained that the club failed to settle the
outstanding amounts within the deadline granted on 4 September 2020, i.e. 19 September
2020.
23. In addition, the player explained that, under any circumstance, the club still owes him the
amount of USD 525,618, detailed as follows:
- USD 245,756 for the remaining part of the default notice;
- USD 113,196 for the June 2020 salary;
- USD 166,666 for the August 2020 salary;
24. In relation to the COVID-19 variations, the player considered that “the unilateral decision of
the Club to reduce the Player's salaries is unreasonable, inadequate, wrongful and in breach
of the FIFA Guidelines”
25. In his reply to the claim of the player, the club insisted that the player had no just cause to
terminate the contract.
26. The club further explained that it imposed a sanction to the player in June 2020.
27. In this regard, the club stated the following as to the outstanding salaries:
- The salaries of March 2020 – May 2020 were timely paid to the Player with valid reductions
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The salary of June 2020 was subject to a lawful deduction of 15% because of contractual
violations of the Player.
- The salaries of June 2020 and July 2020 were issued immediately once this was possible
after the weekend and after Saudi Arabia's National Holiday, and noted that the player
acknowledged to have received these in September 2020.
- The only outstanding salary was the one of August 2020
28. On a subsidiary basis, the club argued that “before departing from Saudi Arabia, the
Player freely and voluntarily signed a waiver, according to which there were no
obligations or claims remaining, i.e. that everything between him and Ittihad was fully
settled.”
29. The player’s new club (intervening party) considered that the player terminated his previous
contract with just cause.
30. The club explained that it contacted the player just over three months after he had lodged a
claim with FIFA against his former club.
Page 6 of 15
REF 20-01464
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.
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 aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and emphasised 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, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes
with an international dimension between players and clubs, as it happens in the matter at
stake.
3.
In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations
of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this
respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering the date
when the claim was lodged, the June 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand.
4.
With the above having been established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into the
substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well
as the documents contained in the file. However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and
documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
5.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that, on 14 January 2020, the parties concluded an
employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2022.
6.
Thereafter, the Chamber observed that, on 13 October 2020, the player lodged a claim
before FIFA against the club for outstanding remuneration and breach of contract without
just cause, while Al Ittihad lodged a claim against the player on 8 October 2020 for breach
of contract without just cause. The Chamber noted that both claims refer to the same
matter, and that they were consolidated into the same procedure.
7.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player terminated the contract on 22 September
2020 due to the alleged existence of an overdue amount of 777,756 USD, which he detailed
as follows:
“As you know, I have been facing many unpaid salaries from -the Club since February 2020.
As a result, and through the intermediary of my lawyer, a first formal notice was sent to the
Club on June 3rd, 2020 to pay me the sum of 800,000 USD, representing the unpaid salaries
for the months of February, March, April and May.
Unfortunately, you have only partially performed, and 245,756 USD remained unpaid.
Page 7 of 15
REF 20-01464
However, I have also not been paid from my salaries for the months of June, July and August,
which generated a new formal notice dated September 4th, 2020 to pay me the total
amount of 777,756 USD (532,000 USD + 245,756 USD).”
8.
In view of the above, the Chamber understood that the main legal issue at stake is to
determine whether the player had a just cause to terminate the contract on 22 September
2020.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which
is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there
are objective criteria, which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to
ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken
before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
10. In addition, the Chamber referred to art. 14 bis par. 1 of the Regulations, according to which
“in the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their
due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided
that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least
15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).”
11. In relation to the Claimed outstanding amounts, the Chamber noted that Al Ittihad
acknowledged that it did not pay the salary August 2020 and therefore assumed that this
amount remained outstanding in any case.
12. As to the salaries of June and July 2020, the Chamber noted that the club argued that they
were paid on 19 September, i.e. significantly after their due dates.
13. On this point, the Chamber observed that the player ultimately acknowledged that he
received the amounts corresponding to June and July 2020.
14. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the club argued that is settled said amounts on 19
September 2020 (i.e. before the termination), but it provided two bank documents in Arabic
only which, nevertheless, indicate the following numerical values:
- USD 80,804 – 23/09/2020 23:20
- USD 166,666 – 23/09/2020 23:20
15. In this regard, the DRC recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in
art. 12 par. 3 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. Similarly, the Chamber
referred to art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that all documents of
relevance to the dispute shall be submitted in the original version as well as translated into
one of the official FIFA languages. 11. In this context, the DRC noted that the Respondent
did not provide a translated version of the documents it submitted in Arabic.
16. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration art. 9 of the Procedural Rules, the
DRC decided that it could not take into account the documents which have not been made
available in an official FIFA language.
Page 8 of 15
REF 20-01464
17. However, for the sake of completeness, the Chamber noted that the numerical values
indicated said documents appear to indicate that the transfer was performed after the
termination, i.e. on 23 September 2020, while the termination letter was sent the day
before.
18. Therefore, the Chamber established that the club failed to pay in due time the player’s
salaries for June, July and August 2020, either in part or in full, and therefore the player
terminated the contract with just cause.
19. The foregoing been established, the Chamber went on to examine the secondary argument
of Al Ittihad in relation to said outstanding salaries.
20. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, according to Al Ittihad, the salary of June 2020
was subject to a lawful deduction of 15% because of contractual violations of the Player.
21. However, after duly examining the evidence on file, the Chamber understood that the club’s
15% deduction of the player’s salary is clearly of an arbitrary nature, since it was issued on
the same date than the alleged violation. Hence, the Chamber inferred that the player was
not subject to any fair proceedings, by means of which he could present his position.
22. As a result, the Chamber rejected Al Ittihad’s allegations concerning the aforementioned
deduction.
23. In addition, the Chamber took note of Al Ittihad’s argument, according to which player
signed a waiver.
24. In this respect, the Chamber examined the contents of the document signed between the
parties and dated 25 September 2020, and observed that it is clearly not a waiver, but a
document by means of which the player returned certain belongings he borrowed from the
club. Consequently, the Chamber rejected Al Ittihad’s arguments in this respect.
25. Thereafter, the Chamber examined the argument of Al Ittihad, according to which it
deducted certain amounts due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
26. Having said that, the DRC wished to refer to the fact that, in light of the worldwide COVID19 outbreak, FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at
providing appropriate guidance and recommendations to member associations and their
stakeholders, to both mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and
ensure that any response is harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020,
FIFA issued an additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides
clarification about the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory
consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
27. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that, according to the COVID-19 Guidelines, Clubs
and employees (players and coaches) are strongly encouraged to work together to find
appropriate collective agreements on a club or league basis regarding employment
conditions for any period where the competition is suspended due to the COVID-19
outbreak.
Page 9 of 15
REF 20-01464
28. In addition, the Chamber observed that, following said document, where (a) clubs and
employees cannot reach an agreement, and (b) national law does not address the situation
or collective agreements with a players’ union are not an option or not applicable, unilateral
decisions to vary terms and conditions of contracts will only be recognized by FIFA’s Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC) or Players’ Status Committee (PSC) where they were made in
good faith, are reasonable and proportionate.
29. With this idea in mind, the Chamber first wished to establish which is the applicable law for
the contract that is at the basis of the dispute at stake.
30. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, following item 3 of the contract, “The two
Parties shall comply with and implement the laws, circulars and regulations issued by SAFF,
FIFA, the Confederation and the Saudi Professional League. If some of the provisions of
these acts are not in agreement with FIFA rules, all applicable FIFA rules will prevail.”
31. In view of the above, the Chamber noted that it is beyond any doubt that the parties agreed
that the FIFA Regulations, namely the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player, are
the primary source of law that is applicable to the contract at stake.
32. After establishing the applicable law to the relevant contract, the Chamber underlined once
again that, following the COVID-19 Guidelines, unilateral decisions to vary agreements will
only be recognised where they were made in good faith and that, when assessing said
decision, the DRC may consider, without limitation, the following elements:
a. whether the club had attempted to reach a mutual agreement with its
employee(s);
b. the economic situation of the club;
c. the proportionality of any contract amendment;
d. the net income of the employee after contract amendment;
e. whether the decision applied to the entire squad or only specific employees.
33. After duly taking note of all of the aforementioned criteria, the Chamber focused its
attention to the principle of good faith when it comes to unilateral decisions to vary
contractual terms. Indeed, the members of the Chamber concurred that this principle is of
paramount importance when it comes to recognize a decision of this nature.
34. With this idea in mind, the members of the Chamber further referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged
fact shall carry the burden of proof.
35. Within this context, and after duly analyzing the evidence gathered during the course of
the investigation, the members of the Chamber considered that the Respondent failed to
prove that it attempted to conduct a negotiation with the player in good faith.
36. As a result, the Chamber was of the opinion that it could not recognize the salary deductions
performed by the Respondent and that, consequently, the player is entitled to his
remuneration as contractually agreed.
Page 10 of 15
REF 20-01464
37. In view of the abaove, the Chamber established that the following amounts remain
outstanding and shall be paid by Al Ittihad to the player:
- USD 245,756 corresponding to the balance of the salaries comprised between February until May 2020;
- USD 113,196 for the June 2020 salary;
- USD 166,666 for the August 2020 salary;
38. Consequently, in strict application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber established that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, the total
outstanding amount of USD 525,618, as detailed in the previous paragraph.
39. Moreover, taking into account the request of the Claimant as well as the longstanding
jurisprudence in this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to award 5% interest
p.a. over said amount as 22 September 2020.
40. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the
termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber decided that, in
accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the club is liable to pay compensation to
the player.
41. In this respect, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of 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.
42. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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.
43. 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. Therefore, other
objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body.
44. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other
benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which
criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber
deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations
Page 11 of 15
REF 20-01464
allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract in
the calculation of the amount of compensation.
45. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies
payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its date of
termination with just cause, i.e. September 2020 until June 2022, and concluded that the
Claimant would have received the following amounts:
September 2020 to June 2021 (10 months)
July 2021 to June 2022
Total:
166.666 USD * 10 = 1,666,666
183.333 USD * 12 = 2,199,996
USD 3,866,662
46. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 3,866,662 serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at
hand.
47. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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 art. 17 par. 1
ii of the Regulations as well as the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a
new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
48. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, afterwards, the player concluded a contract with
the Tunisian club, ES Tunis, valid as from 18 January 2021 until 30 June 2021, according to
which he was entitled to a salary TND (Tunisian Dinar) 49,650 per month, equivalent to
approx. USD 18,000. The Chamber therefore estimated that the value of said contract is
equivalent to approx.. USD 99,000, i.e. 18,000*5.5.
49. In view of the above, the Chamber established that, at this stage, the mitigated
compensation amounts to USD 3,767,662 (i.e. USD 3,866,662 minus USD 99,000.
50. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 ii of the Regulations, according to
which “subject to the early termination of the contract being due to overdue payables, in
addition to the Mitigated Compensation, the player shall be entitled to an amount
corresponding to three monthly salaries (the “Additional Compensation”).”
51. Considering that the matter at stake concerns indeed an early termination of the contract
being due to overdue payables, the Chamber established that the player would be entitled
to three additional salaries, i.e. USD 564,999.
52. However, further observed that, following art. 17 par. 1 ii of the Regulations, “the overall
compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.”
53. Therefore, given that the additional compensation clearly exceeds the mitigation, the
Chamber established that the final due compensation corresponds to the residual value of
the contract, i.e. USD 3,866,662.
Page 12 of 15
REF 20-01464
54. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the player’s
claim and that the club must pay the amount of USD 3,866,662 as compensation for
breach of contract in the case at hand.
55. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent
must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned amount as of the
date of the present decision.
56. Moreover, as a logical consequences of all of the above, the Chamber rejected the claim
of Al Ittihad.
57. Furthermore, taking into account the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution
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.
58. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution 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.
59. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, in
the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45
days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present
decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
60. Finally, the Dispute Resolution 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 13 of 15
REF 20-01464
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of Mr Anice Badri is partially accepted.
2.
Ittihad Club has to pay to Mr Anice Badri, the following amounts:
- USD 525,618 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 September
2020 until the date of effective payment.
- USD 3,866,662 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 20 May 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of Mr Anice Badri are rejected.
4.
The claim of Ittihad Club is rejected.
5.
Mr Anice Badri is directed to immediately and directly inform Ittihad Club of the relevant
bank account to which the latter must pay the due amount.
6.
Ittihad Club 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 Ittihad
Club within 45 days, as from the notification by Mr Anice Badri of the relevant bank
details the following consequences shall arise:
1. Ittihad Club 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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 14 of 15
REF 20-01464
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 15 of 15