Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3840
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 March 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player OUSMANE DIALLO
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Elvis CHETTY (Seychelles), member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), member
CLAIMANT:
Ousmane Diallo, Côte d'Ivoire
RESPONDENT:
TP Mazembe, Congo DR
REF FPSD-3840
I Facts
1. On 1 February 2021, Ousmane Diallo and TP Mazembe concluded an employment contract valid for
five seasons, i.e. from 1 February 2021 until 31 May 2026.
2. Accordingly, the player was entitled to the following:
5.1 Le Club paye au Joueur une remuneration composee d'un salaire fixe, de diverses primes et autres
avantages contractuels en nature. Tous les montants indiques au present article sont nets et seront
payes dans les 5 premiers jours du mois suivant la prestation. Le premier paiement interviendra en
consequence le 5 mars 2021.
5.2 Le Joueur a droit a un salaire mensuel fixe de Trois Mille Dollars Americains (3000 USD)
Dans l'hypothese ou le Joueur prendrait part a moins de 80% des matches officiels en tant que
titulaire au cours d'une saison, son salaire mensuel fixe sera reduit de 50% a partir de la saison
suivante, et restera a ce montant jusqu'au moment ou le joueur prendra part a au moins 80% des
matchs officiels comme_titulaire lors d'une saison suivante - auquel cas son salaire reviendra a 1500
USD.
Free translation into English:
5.1 The Club shall pay the Player a remuneration consisting of a fixed salary, various bonuses and
other contractual benefits in kind. All amounts specified in this Article are net and shall be paid within
the first 5 days of the month following the performance. The first payment shall therefore be made
on 5 March 2021.
5.2 The Player shall be entitled to a fixed monthly salary of Three Thousand US Dollars (US$3000).
In the event that the Player takes part in less than 80% of the official matches as a starter in one
season, his fixed monthly salary shall be reduced by 50% from the following season onwards, and
shall remain at this amount until the Player takes part in at least 80% of the official matches as a
starter in a subsequent season - at which point his salary shall revert to USD 1500.
3. In addition, clause 2 of the contract stipulated the following:
“A la fin de chaque saison, une evaluation sera faite pour determiner le niveau du rendement du
joueur. A la fin de cette evaluation, il sera decide de continuer avec le present contrat, de !'amender
ou tout simplement de le terminer par consensus.”
Free translation into English:
"At the end of each season, an evaluation will be made to determine the level of performance of the
player. At the end of this evaluation, it will be decided to continue with the present contract, to
amend it or simply to terminate it by consensus.
4. The contract further stipulated the following:
“10 RUPTURE POUR JUSTE CAUSE
Le Club peut mettre fin au present contrat pour juste causesans preavis, ni indemnite.
11 RUPTURE SANS JUSTE CAUSE
Si le Joueur met fin au contrat sans juste cause ou si le Club met fin au contrat avec juste cause
conformement a !'article 10 precite, le Joueur. sera redevable d'une indemnite de 5.000.000 USD.
Free translation into English:
"10 TERMINATION FOR JUST CAUSE
REF FPSD-3840
The Club may terminate the present contract for just cause without notice or compensation.
11 TERMINATION WITHOUT JUST CAUSE
If the Player terminates the Agreement without just cause or if the Club terminates the Agreement
with just cause in accordance with Article 10 above, the Player shall be liable to pay compensation in
the amount of USD 5,000,000.
5. According to the player, upon his arrival to Congo, on 6 February 2021, he saw his passport
confiscated by the customs police.
6. Following the player, on 2 July 2021, he submitted a loss declaration form with the Lubumbashi Police
in order to receive a laissez-passer for his return in Cote d'Ivoire.
7. The player further stated that, on the same date, the club provided him with a document with the
following contents, which he refused to sign:
“Attestation de jeu (…)
Je soussigné (…) atteste que le joueur (…) a figuré sur la liste de nos effectifs pendant la saison 20202021 et qu’à partir du 1er juillet 2021 ne fait plus partie de cet effectif.
En accord avec l’article 2 de son contrat, il nous quitte libre de tout engagement
(…)
A partir de ce jour, il est libre d’exercer dans le club de son choix ».
Free translation into English:
"Certification of play (...)
I, the undersigned (...), hereby certify that the player (...) has been on our roster for the season 20202021 and that as of 1 July 2021 he is no longer on our roster.
In accordance with article 2 of his contract, he leaves us free of any commitment
(...)
From this day on, he is free to play for the club of his choice.”
8. The forementioned document included the following signature box:
9. On 17 August 2021, the player sent a first default notice indicating the following:
« Malheureusement, depuis le debut de notre relation contractuelle, vous avez constamment manque
a votre obligation de paiement a man égard en me remunerant seulement a hauteur de 50% de mon
salaire pour les mois de fevrier a juillet 2021, soit un total de 9 000 USO au lieu de 18 000 USD,
conformement a l'artiele 5.2 de mon contrat qui prevoit expressement un salaire mensuel fixe de 3
000 USD.
Par consequent, je vous met en demeure de me payer dans les 10 prochains jours la somme de 9,000
(neuf mille) USD »
Free translation into English:
REF FPSD-3840
"Unfortunately, since the beginning of our contractual relationship, you have constantly failed to pay
me 50% of my salary for the months of February to July 2021, i.e. a total of 9,000 USD instead of
18,000 USD, in accordance with Article 5.2 of my contract which expressly provides for a fixed
monthly salary of 3,000 USD.
Therefore, I am putting you on notice to pay me within the next 10 days the sum of 9,000 (nine
thousand) USD".
10. On 1 September 2021, the player sent a new default notice to the club:
“par la presente, je viens vous inviter, dans les 7 prochains jours, a ;
• Regler la somme de 7 500 USD correspondant a la moitie de mes salaires pour les mois de fevrier a
juin 2021 ;
• Regler la somme de 3 000 USD com,spondant a la totalite de mon salaire pour le_mois de juillet.
(…)
• Clarifier votre intention à l’égard de notre relation contractuelle (…)
Free translation into English:
"I hereby invite you, within the next 7 days, to ;
- Pay the sum of 7,500 USD corresponding to half of my salary for the months of February to June
2021;
- To pay the sum of 3,000 USD corresponding to the totality of my salary for the month of July. (…);
- Clarify your intention with regard to our contractual relationship (...)
11. On 9 September 2021, the player sent a termination letter with the following contents:
“Par courrier en date du 17 aout 2021, je vous ai mis en demeure de me payer les arrieres de
paiements dus en vertu du contrat de travail signe avec votre club le 1er fevrier 2021. Je vous ai
egalement mis en demeure une deuxieme fois par un courrier en date du 1 er septembre 2021.
A ce jour, je constate que ces courriers demeurent sans reponse et qu'aucun paiement n'a ete
effectue par vos services.
Ainsi, par la presente, je mets formellement fin a mon contrat de travail avec juste cause et avec effet
immediat.”.
Free translation into English:
"By letter dated 17 August 2021, I gave you formal notice to pay me the outstanding payments due
under the employment contract signed with your club on 1 February 2021. I also gave you a second
formal notice by letter dated 1 September 2021.
To date, I note that these letters remain unanswered and that no payment has been made by your
services.
Thus, I hereby formally terminate my employment contract with just cause and with immediate effect.
12. The player informed FIFA that, on 15 December 2021, he signed an employment contract with the
Ivorian club, Africa Sports d’Abidjan, for a monthly salary of XOF 300,000 (approx. USD 520), valid
for the season 2021-2022 (note: from 15 December 2021 until 30 June 2022, the player would have
earned 6.5*520 = USD 3,380).
13. On 30 September 2021, the player Ousmane Diallo lodged a claim before FIFA for outstanding
remuneration and breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of the following
amounts:
REF FPSD-3840
-
-
-
USD 13,500 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates, detailed
as follows:
• 7 500 USD from February 2021 until June 2021;
• 6 000 USD from July 2021 2020 until August 2021.
USD 171,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 9 September 2021, detailed as follows:
• 30 000 USD for the sporting season 2021/2022 (from September 2021 to June 2022);
• 36 000 USD for the sporting season 2022/2023 (from July 2022 to June 2023);
• 36 000 USD for the sporting season 2023/2024 (from July 2023 to June 2024);
• 36 000 USD for the sporting season 2024/2025 (from July 2024 to June 2025);
• 33 000 USD for the sporting season 2025/2026 (from July 2025 to May 2026).
USD 5,000 as legal costs.
14. In its reply to the claim, the club rejected the arguments of the player and simultaneously lodged a
counterclaim.
15. The club explained that the player left on holidays and never returned. According to the club, he
provided him with an air ticket to return on 15 August 2021, but he never did so.
16. The club denied having received any default notice prior to the termination letter of 9 September
2021.
17. The club explained that it lodged a criminal complaint before the Courts of Congo DR, insofar the
letters of 17 August 2021 and 1 September 2021 are forged.
18. In view of the above, the club requested the suspension of the proceedings until the criminal justice
would render a decision concerning the default notices.
19. On a subsidiary basis, the club considered that the player terminated the contract without just cause.
20. In particular, the club considered that, following art. 14 bis of the RSTP, the player failed to grant a
15-days deadline.
21. In addition, the club was of the opinion that the player failed to meet his contractual obligations, and
referred to a decision of the DRC according to which an absence of three weeks is a just cause to
terminate the contract (04190658-E).
22. In view of the above, the club requested the payment of compensation in accordance with article 11
of the contract, i.e. in the amount of USD 5,000,000.
23. The club considered that the clause is not excessive since the contract was for a long period (i.e. five
years) and the player forged some documents in order to obtain an unjust enrichment.
24. The club considered in this regard that the possible excessive nature of the penalty clause can never
lead to its nullity the nullity of the clause, but only its possible reduction.
25. On a subsidiary basis, the club requested to limit the payment of compensation by the player to USD
77,550.
REF FPSD-3840
26. In his replica, the player stated that he never received the ticket to return on 15 August 2021.
27. The player further noted that, even if this were true, a plane ticket cannot under any circumstances
be considered as a formal notice to return to Lubumbashi.
28. The player also stated that that the Club did not provide any proof of having requested a visa to the
competent authorities or the administrative procedures thereof.
29. The player explained that he was indeed absent, but this was completely justified due to the course
of the events.
30. In this respect, the player stated that, had the Club deemed that I was absent without any justification,
the procedure to follow was to request his return and to subsequently open disciplinary proceedings,
while ensuring that his right to due process was respected.
31. The player further argued that if the Chamber were to determine his absence was not justified, it
should bear in mind that the Club was definitely not in a position to assert its disciplinary power over
me as they were themselves in a situation of breach of contract. lndeed, according to the player, the
Club was defaulting in its payments towards him since February 2021.
32. As to the criminal procedure concerning the alleged forgery, the player considered it to be “farcical”,
and explained that he never received any notification in this regard.
33. In addition, the player argued that there is no evidence supporting the allegation that the default
notices would be forged.
34. As to the termination of the contract, the player explained that, to avoid any misunderstanding, it is
recalled that I did not only based his termination on article 14bis but also on article 14 since the
Club's lack of interest in maintaining the contractual relationship was observed in various behaviours
and breaches and that the amount of overdue salaries exceeded (extensively) two monthly salaries.
35. The player noted that the pattern of violations instituted by the Club throughout the employment
relationship is in itself sufficient to establish the just cause without having to rely solely on article
14bis.
36. As to the compensation requested by the club, the player indicated that the liquidated damage clause
in clause 11 of the contract embodies the abusive nature of the employment relationship established
by the Club, since the non-reciprocal clause of USD 5,000,000 corresponds to 1,667 monthly salaries,
which amounts to 139 years of work.
37. In its duplica, the player insisted in the suspension of the proceedings in view of the existence of a
related criminal procedure.
38. The club stated that “there is nothing dilatory about this criminal complaint and an investigation is
currently underway.”
39. The club insisted that the player did not submit any official evidence of the sending and reception of
the alleged default notice.
REF FPSD-3840
40. The club stated the following in this regard:
(i) It is surprising that the emails were sent by a certain Inzan Kone - unknown to the Club - and not
directly by the player (or at least with the player as a copy) whereas in the context of the present
procedure the player uses his personal e-mail address ([email protected]);
(ii) While the letter dated 17 August 2021 indicates that it will be copied to several people, the alleged
proof of mailing does not mention any copied recipients;
(iii) No preview of the pdf allegedly attached to the email dated 17 August 2021 is visible;
(iv) It is illogical that the email of 17 August 2021 was allegedly sent to [email protected] and
[email protected], whereas the email of 1 September 2021 was would only have been sent to
[email protected].
41. The club insisted in the payment of compensation in the amount of USD 5,000,000.
REF FPSD-3840
II Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 30 September 2021 and submitted for decision on 24 March 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.
2. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 (August 2021 edition, it 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 Congolese club.
3. Subsequently, the DRC analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the
matter. In this respect, he / she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 30 September 2021, 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
4. 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. Admissibility
5. The Chamber noted that the Respondent requested the suspension of the proceedings before FIFA
since two default letters were allegedly forged. However, the Chamber understood that the evidence
gathered during the investigation does not provide a legal basis for said suspension, insofar there is
no strong and convincing evidence that would determine that the outcome of the present matter is
contingent to the results of the alleged criminal proceedings.
d. Merits of the dispute
6. 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-
REF FPSD-3840
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
7. The Chamber first observed that, on 1 February 2021, the player Ousmane Diallo and TP Mazembe
concluded an employment contract valid for five seasons, i.e. from 1 February 2021 until 31 May
2026, according to which he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 3,000.
8. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that, on 30 September 2021, the player lodged a claim
before FIFA for outstanding remuneration and breach of contract without just cause. In particular,
the Chamber observed that the player argued that, after having put the club in default for
outstanding remuneration, he terminated the contract on 16 September 2021.
9. On the other hand, the Chamber took the club’s position into account, and noted that the later
rejected the claim of the player and simultaneously lodged a counterclaim. According to the club,
the player left on holidays and never returned.
10. 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, and to determine the consequences
thereof.
11. In this regard, the Chamber considered of utmost important to recall the main sequence of events
that led to the aforementioned situation.
12. In particular, the Chamber observed that, on 2 July 2021, without any previous discussion, the club
provided him with a document with the following contents, which he refused to sign:
« “Attestation de jeu (...)Je soussigné (...) atteste que le joueur (...) a figuré sur la liste de nos effectifs
pendant la saison 2020-2021 et qu’à partir du 1er juillet 2021 ne fait plus partie de cet effectif.En
accord avec l’article 2 de son contrat, il nous quitte libre de tout engagement(...)A partir de ce jour,
il est libre d’exercer dans le club de son choix ».
Free translation into English:
"Certification of play (...)I, the undersigned (...), hereby certify that the player (...) has been on our
roster for the season 2020-2021 and that as of 1 July 2021 he is no longer on our roster.In accordance
with article 2 of his contract, he leaves us free of any commitment(...) From this day on, he is free to
play for the club of his choice.”
13. In relation to the aforementioned letter, the Chamber observed that it contains the necessary
elements to be considered as an act of unilateral termination.
REF FPSD-3840
14. Indeed, a majority of the Chamber considered that this document clearly establishes a unilateral
termination in accordance with art. 2 of the contract, i.e. due to a negative evaluation of his
performance.
15. The Chamber further noted that the document is signed by the club and it does not require the
player’s acceptance, despite the existence of a signature box for him. As such, a majority of the
Chamber concurred that it can be qualified as an unilateral act.
16. As a result, the Chamber established that the club unilaterally terminated the contract without just
cause with effect as from 1 July 2021. For this same reason, the Chamber considered that the
player’s letter of termination of the contract, which occurred on 16 September 2021, became
irrelevant insofar the contract was already terminated.
17. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber further underlined that the club ceased to pay the
player’s remuneration after July 2021.
ii.
Consequences
18. The Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of such unjustified breach
of contract committed by the Respondent.
19. However, before entering into the calculation of the compensation, the Chamber wished to
determine the outstanding dues of the player, as he is entitled to receive his outstanding
remuneration until the end of June 2021.
20. In this regard, the Chamber noted that clause 5.1 of the contract stipulated a variable salary
depending on the player’s participation. Yet, in the opinion of the Chamber, this variable nature of
the salary depends on the player’s participation in matches, and is therefore of a potestative nature:
only the club can ultimately decide over this.
21. As a result, the Chamber decided to consider to all effects the player’s maximum salary, i..e. USD
3,000 net. The Chamber further observed that the player acknowledged that he was paid 50%
between February until June 2021, i.e. USD 1,500 net per month.
22. Therefore, the Chamber established that the club shall pay the rest of the player’s remuneration
for said period, i.e. 1,500*5 = USD 7,500
23. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 7,500, as explained
above.
REF FPSD-3840
24. 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 due dates until the date of effective payment.
25. 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.
26. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify 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.
27. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of clause 10 of the contract, which
established the following:
“10 RUPTURE POUR JUSTE CAUSE
Le Club peut mettre fin au present contrat pour juste cause sans preavis, ni indemnite.
11 RUPTURE SANS JUSTE CAUSE
Si le Joueur met fin au contrat sans juste cause ou si le Club met fin au contrat avec juste cause
conformement a !'article 10 precite, le Joueur. sera redevable d'une indemnite de 5.000.000 USD.
Free translation into English:
"10 TERMINATION FOR JUST CAUSE
The Club may terminate the present contract for just cause without notice or compensation.
11 TERMINATION WITHOUT JUST CAUSE
If the Player terminates the Agreement without just cause or if the Club terminates the Agreement
with just cause in accordance with Article 10 above, the Player shall be liable to pay compensation
in the amount of USD 5,000,000.”
REF FPSD-3840
28. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that it did not
fulfil the criteria of reciprocity and proportionality, in line with the Chamber’s longstanding
jurisprudence, and therefore could not be taken into account for establishing the amount of
compensation payable to the Claimant. In particular, the Chamber noted that the clause is
manifestly disproportionate as it grants a right to the club to terminate the contract without any
compensation, while obliges the player for such circumstance to pay a very significant amount of
USD 5,000,000.
29. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the aforementioned clause shall be deemed as
null and void. As a result, the amount of compensation payable by the Claimant to the Respondent
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.
30. 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 until its term.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 177,000 (i.e. USD 3,000 , from
July 2021 until 31 May 2026, 59 months*3,000) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
31. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the player had signed an employment contract with
another club during the relevant period, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce
his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Chamber 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 compensation for breach of contract in connection
with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
32. The Chamber further noted that that, on 15 December 2021, the player signed an employment
contract with the Ivorian club, Africa Sports d’Abidjan, for a monthly salary of XOF 300,000 (approx.
USD 520), valid for the season 2021-2022. The Chamber thus concluded from 15 December 2021
until 30 June 2022, the player would have earned 6.5*520 = USD 3,380).
33. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of
USD 3,380
34. 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 173,620 to the coach
(i.e. USD 177,000 minus USD 3,380), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
35. Lastly, taking into consideration the coach’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber
in this regard, the latter decided to award the coach interest on said compensation at the rate of
5% p.a. as of the date of claim until the date of effective payment.
REF FPSD-3840
36. As a logical consequence of the above, the Chamber further established that the counterclaim of
the club had to be rejected.
37. 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.
38. Furthermore, 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.
39. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
iii.
Compliance with monetary decisions
40. 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.
41. In this regard, the Chamber 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.
42. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the full amount
due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification of the decision,
failing which, at the request of the creditor, 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 club in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7
of the Regulations.
43. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account provided by
the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
44. The 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. 24 par. 8 of the
Regulations.
e.
Costs
45. 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
REF FPSD-3840
agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the
parties.
46. Furthermore, 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.
47. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
REF FPSD-3840
III Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the player, Ousmane Diallo, is admissible.
2.
The claim of Mr Ousmane Diallo is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, TP Mazembe, has to pay to the player, the following amounts:
- USD 7,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,500 (i.e. 50% of the salary of February 2021) as from 6 March 2021 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,500 (i.e. 50% of the salary of March 2021) as from 6 April 2021 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,500 (i.e. 50% of the salary of April 2021) as from 6 May 2021 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,500 (i.e. 50% of the salary of May 2021) as from 6 June 2021 until the date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 1,500 (i.e. 50% of the salary of June 2021) as from 6 July 2021 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 173,620 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 30 September 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the player are rejected
5.
The counterclaim of TP Mazembe 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 (August 2021
edition), 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.
TP Mazembe 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.
8.
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.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
REF FPSD-3840
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