Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-00734
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
Passed on 10 September 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ulysse Diallo
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairman
MD Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member
Michelle Colucci (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
ULYSSE DIALLO, Mali
Represented by Mr. João Lobão
RESPONDENT:
SABAH FC, Azerbaijan
Represented by Mrs. Maria Tokmakova
Page 2 of 14
REF 20-00734
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 2 August 2019, the Malian player, Ulysse Diallo (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant)
and the Azerbaijani club, Sabah FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) concluded a
“contract on services” (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31
May 2021. The contract was drafted both in Azerbaijani and English.
2.
According to art. 3.1.13 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the
Respondent AZN 1,000 net per month as rent allowance.
3.
According to art. 5.1.1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the
Respondent a total net fee of USD 320,000 “independent from the amount referred in
3.1.13” payable as follows:
a) Season 2019/2020:
- USD 30,000 as a signing-on fee until 15 August 2019;
- USD 50,000 as a signing-on fee until 31 January 2020;
- USD 80,000 to be paid to the player in ten monthly instalments of USD 8,000 each, starting
from August 2019 to May 2020, due in 10 working days as from the end of each month;
b) Season 2020/2021:
- USD 40,000 as signing-on fee until 15 July 2020;
- USD 40,000 as signing-on fee until 31 January 2021;
- USD 80,000 to be paid to the player in ten monthly instalments of USD 8,000 each, starting
from August 2020 to May 2021, due in 10 working days as from the end of each month.
4.
On 15 August 2019, the player and the club signed a document titled “Annex 1 (one) about
making amendments to assignment agreement (civil legal agreement) dd. 02.08.2019 signed
by Ulysse Diallo and ‘Sabah Football Club’ LLC” (hereinafter: the additional agreement). The
additional agreement was executed in Azerbaijani only.
5.
The additional agreement contained the language transcribed below:
“1. Subject of Additional Agreement
The [Respondent] and [the Claimant] will agree to following edit of the Agreement
dd.02.08.2019 by amending par. 3 and 5 of the Agreement.
3. [Respondent]’s obligations
3.1.13. The [Respondent] will pay the [Claimant] totally AZN (five hundred twenty six AZN
twenty five kopeck (for 22 months, from August 1, 2019 to May 1, 2021).
Page 3 of 14
REF 20-00734
5. Payment
5.1. The service fee payable from the [Respondent] to the [Claimant], awards and other
payments for performing obligations and services hereof will be carried out in following
manner.
5.1.1. This Agreement shall be effective from the date of its execution, total service fee 143
802.10 (one hundred forty three thousand eight hundred two AZN ten kopeck) will be
transferred to bank account of football player in Azerbaijan for season 2019/20 hereof until
May 31, 2020. The [Claimant] will receive 14 380.21 (five thousand four hundred six AZN two
kopeck) per month by dividing it for 10 (ten) months.
5.1.1. The total service fee for about 143 802.10 (one hundred forty three thousand eight
hundred two AZN ten kopeck) shall be transferred to bank account of the football player in
Azerbaijan until May 31, 2021 for season 2020/21. The [Claimant] will receive 14 380.21 (five
thousand four hundred six AZN two kopeck) per month by dividing it for 10 (ten) months.
5.2 In the Event that the [Claimant] does not receive service fee for 2 (two) months, AFFA can
address the issue to players’ Status and Transfer Committee.
5.3 All taxes and SSPF distributions arising hereof and that are under [Claimant]’s disposal will
be covered by the [Claimant].
2. Other terms of Additional Agreement
2.1. This Additional Agreement will be integral part of the Agreement dd.02.08.2019.
2.2 This Additional Agreement is executed in 2 (two) copies. One copy is provided to the
[Claimant] and the other to the [Respondent].”
6.
On 28 January 2020, the Claimant sent a formal notice to the Respondent requesting the
payment of the USD 50,000 due on 31 January 2020 in accordance with the contract. The
Respondent replied to such notice by underlining that the parties had signed the additional
agreement whereby they had changed the payment terms of the contract.
7.
On 24 March, via written notice, the Respondent was put in default by the Claimant of
payment of USD 50,000 which had fallen due on 31 January 2020.
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
8.
On 14 May 2020, the player filed a claim against the club before FIFA for outstanding
remuneration. A brief summary of the parties’ position is detailed in continuation.
Page 4 of 14
REF 20-00734
a. Claim of the player
9.
In his claim, the Claimant explained that the club made the first payment of USD 30,000 due
on 15 August 2019. After receiving this amount, the player submitted he was called by the
club for a meeting supposedly regarding tax issues arising from the contract. The Claimant
explained that in good faith he attended this meeting with the Respondent’s Club Manager,
Mr Alexey Barvinsky.
10. The player explained that in the cited meeting he was present with a document drafted in
Azerbaijani, which he firstly refused to sign. However, the player explained that the Club
Manager insisted, stating that such document was nothing more than a declaration for tax
reasons for the local tax authority, and therefore it did not need to be in English.
11. Moreover, the Claimant submitted he was supposedly told that he could not leave the
meeting until he had signed the document. As such, the Claimant, while admitting he signed
the additional agreement, holds that the Club Manager took advantage of the good
relationship he had with players to force the Claimant to sign such document, which he did
not know, at the time, was in fact the additional agreement.
12. In continuation, the player argued that in late October 2019 he suffered more pressure from
the Respondent’s Board, namely, he was sent to train with the youth team and his salary was
paid late, which caused him stress and anxiety.
13. Following such behaviour on the Respondent’s part, the Claimant narrated that he asked his
lawyer to enter negotiations regarding a mutual termination of the contract; however, the
parties differed as to the amounts due until the end of the contract and no termination
agreement was reached.
14. The player explained that at this point, the Respondent’s lawyer sent the additional agreement
to the Claimant’s lawyer. Upon analysing the document, the Claimant claimed to have
realized that the Respondent had made him sign the additional agreement in male fide, i.e.
the document which he was forced to sign during the meeting with the Club Manager on 15
August 2019.
15. In continuation, the player explained that on 28 January 2020, he sent a formal notice to the
Respondent requesting the payment of the USD 50,000 due on 31 January 2020 in
accordance with the contract. The player further explained that the received a response from
the Respondent underlining that the parties have signed a valid amendment whereby they
have changed the payment terms.
16. The Claimant deemed that the additional agreement is null and void since the Claimant’s
signature was fraudulently obtained by the Respondent. Indeed, the Claimant argued that he
(i) was not informed of the contents of the document he was signing; (ii) the Respondent
acted in bad faith when it presented a document in a language that it knew the Claimant did
not understand, and (iii) was led to sign a document that he, as informed by the Club, was
Page 5 of 14
REF 20-00734
only needed for tax reasons. According to the Claimant, it is self-evident that no player or
employee would freely relinquish half of his salary only 20 days after signing an employment
contract.
17. Finally, the Claimant stated that on 24 March 2020 the Respondent was formally informed of
the request of the Claimant to proceed with the payment of the amount due on 31 January
2020 (i.e. USD 50,000).
18. The Claimant requested the following relief:
“The Claimant requests the DRC to recognize that the amendment signed is considered null
and void and consequently:
- The Respondent is ordered to pay the overdue salaries of USD 50,000 net plus 5% interest
thereof as of 31 January 2020;
- The Respondent is ordered to pay the due salaries of: a) USD 40,000 due on 15 July 2020;
b) USD 40,000 due on 31 January 2021.
- The Decision shall be executed in accordance with Art. 24 bis FIFA RSTP and also include a
decision about the consequences of the clubs failure to pay all due amounts.”
b. Position of the club
19. The Respondent rejected the player’s claim. It explained that following a review by the club’s
staff of the player’s performance, he was offered a loan transfer or a reduction of his salary
in the meeting of 15 August 2019. The club asserted that its interpreter was present at the
meeting and translated the contents of the additional agreement to the player.
20. As to the validity of the contract, the Respondent firstly argued that the fact that the language
of the contract being Azerbaijani does not affect its validity. In particular, the Respondent
argued that “FIFA does not provide for any mandatory rules regarding the language of the
employment contract as a result of which one may therefore conclude that parties are
generally entirely free to choose the language of the contract”. What is more, the Respondent
referred to the jurisprudence of the DRC and argued that it “very consistently acknowledges
agreements drafted in any language, even if one of parties does not speak that language, as
valid and binding”.
21. In continuation, the Respondent argued that no evidence has been produced by the Claimant
to demonstrate that the additional agreement was executed under duress or coercion.
Accordingly, the Respondent is of the opinion that the player did not “adduce any evidence
to the alleged fact, namely that the Additional Agreement was “signed under duress or
induced by fraud”, therefore this argument also shall not be taken into account by the DRC
as it is an ungrounded and false statement of the Player”.
22. The Respondent requested the claim to be rejected.
Page 6 of 14
REF 20-00734
c. Contractual situation of the player
23. Upon request from FIFA to clarify his employment situation, the player confirmed that he was
still under contract with the Respondent.
III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
24.
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 14 May 2020 and submitted
for decision on 10 September 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June
2020 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.
25.
Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
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 (edition August 2020), the Chamber is competent to
deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Malian player and an Azerbaijani club.
26.
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 Player (edition August 2020), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 May 2020, the March 2020 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b.
Burden of proof
27.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of 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. Likewise, the DRC stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
28.
In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
Page 7 of 14
REF 20-00734
c.
29.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC 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
30.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties firstly dispute the validity of the additional
agreement, and secondly the consequences thereof, i.e. whether the player is entitled to
the requested outstanding remuneration or not.
31.
On one hand, the Chamber recalled that the player argued that (i) he was not informed of
the contents of the document he was signing; (ii) the Respondent acted in bad faith when
it presented a document in a language that it knew the Claimant did not understand, and
(iii) he was led to sign a document that, as informed by the Club, was only needed for tax
reasons. As such, the player concluded that the additional agreement was to be considered
null and void.
32.
On the other hand, the DRC observed that the Respondent argued that the additional
agreement was validly and regularly executed, since the fact that the player did not
understand the language it was drafted in has no impact on such validity.
33.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it first had to examine whether the
additional agreement had been validly concluded between the Claimant and the
Respondent.
34.
The Chamber then turned to the evidence on file and observed that the player did not bring
forward any proof regarding his allegation that he was forced to sign the additional
agreement. In other words, the DRC found itself unable to assess whether coercion or
duress, as alleged by the player, had taken place in the occasion of the execution of the
addition agreement, on account of the fact that the player did not meet his burden of proof
in accordance with the aforementioned art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules.
35.
At this point, the Chamber acknowledged the existence of the well-established
jurisprudence of the DRC, according to which a party signing a document of legal
significance, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and is consequently liable
to bear the possible legal consequences arising from the execution of the document, even
if - as in the case at hand - a player does not understand the language in which the
document is drafted.
Page 8 of 14
REF 20-00734
36.
Consequently, in account of the foregoing considerations, the DRC found that the parties
had validly executed the additional agreement and hence were bound by its terms in
accordance with the principle of pact sunt servanda.
37.
Nevertheless, the Chamber recalled and duly took into account that the parties also strongly
dispute the circumstances, in particular, the legal and economic consequences of the
additional agreement: whilst the player argues that he is owed USD 130,000 corresponding
to three instalments of the sign-on fee agreed under the contract, the club submitted that
the additional agreement established a new remuneration of the player, which did not
include such payments.
38.
Accordingly, the Chamber proceeded to examine if the player is entitled to the amounts
sought, be that under the contract and/or the additional agreement.
39.
By doing so, and once again underlying the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules, the Chamber noted that neither of the parties has provided evidence of the context
regarding the execution of the additional agreement, in spite of the fact that both parties
advance several arguments to this extent.
40.
Consequently, the DRC established that it had to analyse only the contents of the additional
agreement to determine the outcome of the second issue in dispute.
41.
By doing so, the DRC was of the firm opinion that the contents of the additional agreement
are unclear. The Chamber found it difficult to understand whether said additional
agreement was executed with the purpose of overwriting/re-writing the contents of clauses
3.13 and 5.1.1 of the contract, or to provide further clarity on how payments would be
performed, as an annex to the contract. In this respect, the following provisions were
highlighted by the DRC:
a. The additional agreement is titled as an “annex 1” to “make amendments”;
b. Clause 1 of the additional agreement states that the “subject” (rectius, object) is to
“edit” (i.e. change, correct) clauses 3 and 5 of the agreement.
c. The following item of the additional agreement reads “3.13” and states that the club
would pay AZN 1,052.60 to the player for 22 months;
d. Item 5.1 et seq of the additional agreement establish that the player would receive the
“total service fee” of AZN 143,802.10 in 10 equal instalments for each season, i.e.
2019/2020 and 2020/2021. The same item reads that the additional agreement was
“effective from the date of its execution”;
e. Clause 5.3 of the additional agreement reads that the player would be responsible for
“taxes” and “distributions”.
f. Clause 2.1 of the additional agreement states that it was an “integral part” of the
contract.
Page 9 of 14
REF 20-00734
42.
Given such uncertainty, the DRC determined it was necessary to interpret the contents of
the additional agreement. Such interpretation has to give due consideration, absent a clear
wording, (a) to the true intention of the parties, and (b) to the principle of in dubio contra
stipulatorem, bearing in mind that the club was the draftsman as the additional agreement
is only in Azerbaijani, a language the player undisputedly is not familiar with.
43.
On the first issue, i.e. the true intention of the parties, the Chamber starting by asserting it
found incongruent for the player to give up on significant earnings, especially after having
received USD 30,000 as sign-on fee a month earlier.
44.
In continuation, the Chamber recalled that it is customary in the world of football that the
parties sign additional agreements/addendums to further establish how payments will be
performed, for both currency/exchange rate and tax issues.
45.
In this sense, the Chamber examined the contents of both the contract and the additional
agreement, and found that the parties, as narrated by the player, signed the additional
agreement with the purpose of re-arranging payments in light of the applicable taxes. The
Chamber came to such conclusion by observing that firstly, under the contract, payments
would be due to the player net, and in USD for the most part as per the wording of clauses
3.13, 5.1 and 5.3 of the contract. However, as per the additional agreement, the parties
agreed that the player would no longer receive his payments net, nor in USD for his monthly
earnings, on account of the fact that he had a slight increase in his rent allowance, and the
(new) monthly salary was slightly higher than the one foreseen in the contract.
46.
Having so found, the Chamber then turned to the second point of interpretation, and
determined that, bearing in mind that the club was the draftsman as the contract is only in
Azerbaijani, both agreements on file must be interpreted to the disadvantage of the club.
47.
On account of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber concluded that the additional
agreement had to be read in conjunction with the contract, and not as a replacement of
the former as argued by the club. In particular, the DRC found that the unclear wording of
such document cannot be interpreted as if it was meant to be a full amendment to the
contract. Consequently, and absent a clear disposition to the contrary, the Chamber
established that the true intention of the parties was the one that the additional agreement
only changed/amended specific portions of the contract regarding the remuneration of the
player, but not its entirety; therefore not excluding the bonuses/sign-on fees due to the
player, but solely to re-arrange payment methods regarding the player’s monthly earnings
on account of tax/currency exchange issues.
48.
In conclusion, the Chamber decided to uphold the argumentation of the Claimant that it
would not have made sense for him to relinquish a significant portion of his earnings, and
determined, in line with the contract and the principle of pacta sunt servanda, that the
player is entitled to the remuneration of USD 50,000 which fell due on 31 January 2020 as
well as the payment of USD 40,000 that was due on 15 July 2020, both of which the club
failed to honour.
Page 10 of 14
REF 20-00734
49.
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 player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 50,000 as from its due
date until the date of effective payment.
50.
At the same time, the Chamber concluded, as to the other amounts claimed by the
Claimant, that these shall be considered premature, as they are not due before 31 January
2021.
51.
The Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other claims filed by any of the
parties.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
52.
Finally, taking into account the consideration under number 48. above, the 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.
53.
In this regard, the DRC 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.
54.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment
in which the player communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, provided
that the decision is final and binding, 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.
55.
The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans 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.
d.
56.
Costs
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
Page 11 of 14
REF 20-00734
57.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, ULYSSE DIALLO, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, SABAH FC, has to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 50,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 40,000 as outstanding remuneration.
3.
The claim of the Claimant regarding payments concerning 31 January 2021 is premature.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant
bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
6.
The Respondent 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 the
Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank
details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent 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).
Page 12 of 14
REF 20-00734
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. The decision is pronounced free of costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13 of 14
REF 20-00734
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 14 of 14