Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 20-00609
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 April 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Patrick Friday Eze
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairman
Stéphane Burchkalter (France), member
Mohamed Muzammil (Singapore), member
CLAIMANT:
Patrick Friday Eze, Nigeria
RESPONDENT:
Al Ramtha, Jordan
INTERVENING PARTY:
KS Kukesi, Albania
Page 2 of 14
REF 20-00609
I.
Facts
1.
On 13 December 2019, the Player and the Club concluded an employment contract (hereinafter:
the contract), valid as from 3 December 2019 until 30 May 2021.
2. According to art. 16, 17 and 18 of the contract, the Player was entitled to the following
remuneration and benefits:
16 The total financial value of the contract is an amount of (150 000) one hundred and fifty
thousand US dollars distributed according to item No 17 and 18 of this Contract for a season
and a half
17 The total value of 2020 season is (100,000) (…) of which a financial advance of (20,000)
dollars and the remainder of the amount is distributed equally on monthly salaries for ten
Gregorian months with a monthly salary (8000) US dollars.
18 The total value of the half of 2021 season is (50,000) US dollars distributed on monthly
salaries
19. The Club shall provide housing.
20. The Club shall provide Transportation.
21. The Club shall provide the Player with tickets,
22- The Club shall pay the Player the following allowances and remuneration
a. If the club wins the league championship, the player receives a reward of 30.090
b If the club wins the Jordan Cup the player receives a reward of 20 003 $
c. if the player scores 20 goats in the 2020 season of the league he well receive a reward of ten
thousand dollars, and if the number of goals exceeds 20 goals, each goal will get a thousand
dollars (except for penalty kicks).
3. The contract further stipulated that the Club was allowed to impose sanctions on the Player
and to reduce his salary, on the following conditions:
“24. The Club shall be entitled to reduce the Player's financial entitlements which are provided for
under this Contract by not more than 50% of the player’s entitlements provided for under this
Contract which comprise the salary.signing up fee and any other financial entitlements if the Club
is relegated to a lower division. The Player shall also be entitled to terminate the Contract at the
end of the season in which the Club is relegated provided that he pays 50% of the value of the
entire period remaining from this Con tract to the Club
The Club shall be entitled to increase such entitlements by the same rate if promoted to a higher
Division.”
4. Furthermore, the Club had the possibility of terminating the contract by paying two monthly
salaries to the Player (art. 28 of the contract).
5. On 19 February, the club Al Sareeh sent the following communication to the club:
“We hope the Chairman of Ramtha Club to loan the player “Patrick Friday” in the stage of going into
the 2020 season, with a monthly salary of $ 10,500”
6. On 20 February 2020, the Club asked the Player to “express your opinion on the loan offer submitted
to you by Al-Sareeh Sports Club on 2/19/2020 in writing within 24 hours”.
7. On 20 February 2020, the player via his legal representative, sent a letter to the club, expressing the
following:
Page 3 of 14
REF 20-00609
“we object to your illicit actions, aiming to intimidate and induce my client to prematurely
terminate the employment relationship
(…)
First of all, I have been informed by my client of his exclusion from being part of the First
Team, including participation in the training sessions and other activities of the squad, as of
the date 9 February 2020.
(…)
Secondly, after having manifested an abusive conduct, your club has also failed to comply
with the financial obligations towards my client, by not paying the monthly salary of January
2020, in the amount of USD 8,000.00.”
8. With three documents dated 18 February 2020, the Club stated the following:
“Due to your absence from the team's training without permission on 15/2/2020 according to
the list of discipline and violations and a bond for item No. 4, it was decided to deduct 25% of
your salary. Repeated for the third time”
9. With a document dated 20 February 2020 (note: no evidence that the documents were sent on
20.02.2020), the Club informed the Player of the following:
“Due to your absence from the team's training without permission on 8/2/2020 according to the list of
discipline and violations and a bond for item No. 4, it was decided to deduct 20% of your salary
Repeated for the second time.”
10. Thereafter the Club issued a new document with the following contents:
(…)
In order to repeat the violation and your absence from the team match on 14/2/2020, it was
decided to deduct 100% of your salary accept respect”
11. By means of a letter dated 26 February 2020, the Player objected to the “the six disciplinary sanctions
illicitly imposed to my client for infringements never consumed by him (notified yesterday
25.02.2020)”. The Player emphasised that he was present at every training and that the sanctions
imposed were illegal and unproven. The Player also stated that by adding up the 6 sanctions, 305%
of the monthly salary of the Player should be deducted, meaning that not only will he not receive
his salaries of January and February 2020 but also the upcoming months of March and April 2020.
12. In this regard, the Player pointed out that this would breach art. 24 of the contract and that he was
never provided with a copy of the disciplinary regulations of the club. Finally, the Player granted
the Club 10 days to pay his January salary.
13. On the same day, i.e. 26 February 2020, the Club terminated the contract, raising art. 28 of the
contract (payment of 2 monthly salaries). In the termination letter, the Club invoked the following
reasons:
“l. Absentees or delay from training and matches as follow:
a. Absence of training on 4/2/2020
b. Absence from a football match with Sahab Club on 7/2/2020
c. Absence of training on 8/2/2020
d. Absence of training on 12/2/2020
e. A delay of training on 13/2/2020
f. Your absence from the preparatory training in front of Alsareh Club on
14/2/2020 and your absence from the match witb Alsareh Club on the next
Page 4 of 14
REF 20-00609
day on 1 5/2/2020
g. Absence from the official match with Alwehdat Club on 21/2/2020
2. Your abuse and misbehavior with the technical staff on 15/2/2020 during the official match
with Alsareh Club because the coach put you as a reserve player
3. You left the playground and sat among the fans as an attempt to provoke the technical and
administrative staff in the official match with Alsareh club because the coach put you as a
reserve player.
4. While driving your car, you his a security barrier (…) at the venue of the official match (…)
on 30/1 /2020 at 2:30 PM. The problem was ended amicably.”
5. Your refusal to undergo a medical examination after training regarding the detection of
the intake of any prohibited substances and abuse of the medical apparatus in the club on
13/2/2020.
6. Driving your car, you ran over a citizen 11/2/2020, and the club helped you out of detention
and the case is still ongoing ta date.
7. You continue to use obscene and bad words that are not of the reputation and
morality of a football player.”
14. Furthermore, on the same day, the Club asked the Player to return the company car and the
apartment within 3 days.
15. On 28 February 2020, the player took note of the termination and objected to the grounds invoked
by the Club, claiming that the Club breached the contract and that said termination is without just
cause.
16. On 8 August 2020, the player concluded a contract with the Albanian club, FC Kukesi, valid as from
the date of signature and for 2 years.
17. According to said contract, the player was entitled to ALL (Albanian Leke 40,000 per month) [approx.
USD 387] (from August 2020 until 31 May 2021, the player would have earned 387*10=USD 3,870]
18. On 15 April 2020, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club for breach of contract
without just cause.
19. In his claim, the player held that the club only paid the advance payment of USD 20,000 and
thereafter did not comply with its financial obligations. In other words, the player argued that
he stopped receiving his salary after only 1 month with the club.
20. The player further underlined that the disciplinary sanctions were notified to him on 20 and
25 February 2020, only as a result of his letter dated 20 February 2020. According to him, he
was never informed before this of any misconduct which could lead to sanctions.
21. The player further noted that the sanctions represent a deduction of 305% of the Player’s
salaries, despite the contract only providing for a maximum reduction of 50%. Such an
important reduction means that the player should have offered his services for free for a few
months.
22. The Player further argued that he never received a copy of the disciplinary regulations,
allegedly used by the Club to apply said sanctions.
Page 5 of 14
REF 20-00609
23. Finally, the Player stated that discrepancies can be noted in the sanctions imposed by the Club:
sanction for being absent to a match and for misconduct against the team’s staff during the
same match or absence from a match to which he was not called as part of the team.
24. According to the player, the Club psychologically harassed him in order to induce him to
terminate the contract.
25. The Player further noted that he was invited to accept a loan to a third club in February 2020
and was excluded from training with the first team. Following the player, this demonstrates
that the Club was no longer interested in the his services.
26. In light of the above, the Player considers that the Club terminated the contract without just
cause and requested the total amount of USD 190,000 (no interest requested), broken down
as follows:
- USD 16,000 as salaries for the months of January and February 2020;
- USD 114,000 as compensation for breach of contract;
- USD 60,000 as loss of opportunity for not being able to receive all other financial
remuneration and benefits as set out in the contract.
27. In its reply to the claim, the club rejected the position of the player and simultaneously lodged a
counterclaim against him.
28. According to the club, the player was warned on several occasions about his absences, bad behaviour
and insubordination. As a result, the club was of the opinion that the termination was compliant
with the principle of ultima ratio.
29. Among other aspects, the club argued that, on 11 February 2020, the player hit a pedestrian while
driving and that he was subsequently arrested. In this respect, the club attached a copy of the
relevant criminal proceedings.
30. The club further alleged that the player committed the following contractual breaches:
‣the 12-02-2020: absence from training
‣the 13-02-2020: training delay
‣the 14-02-2020: absence from the pre-match physical preparation session.
‣the 15-02-2020: absence and not participation in official match against Al-Sareeh Club
(Match sheet: attachment No.08)
‣the 21-02-2020: absence and non-participation in official match against Al-Wehdat
(Match report: attachment No.09)
‣21-02-2020: the player has changed the place of residence without notifying the club;
31. In the opinion of the club, the player’s "actions and comments show a deliberate and intentional
attempt to cause problems to the employer"
32. In view of the above, the club requested the payment of the total amount of USD 167,700 (note: no
interest) corresponding to:
USD 114,000 as compensation for breach of the contract;
USD 20,000 as loss of benefit and/or as reimbursement of the sign on fee “taken by the
player”;
USD 30,000 as damages to the image of the club;
Page 6 of 14
REF 20-00609
USD 1,500 as reimbursement of the lodging allocation from 3 December 2019 until 6 March
2020;
USD 2,200 as reimbursement of the car rental as from 3 December 2019 until 6 March 2020;
For the DRC to confirm that the player can only claim 50% of the January 2020 salary “taking
into account the discipline issues of the player” (note: free translation from French).
33. In his replica and reply to the counterclaim, the player rejected the allegations of the club.
34. In the opinion of the player, the club failed to prove that it had any just cause to terminate the
contract.
35. In this respect, the player denied having received any warning or notification until 25 February 2020
and that, in fact, he only received a communication from the club after his default notice of 20
February 2020.
36. As to the salary deductions imposed by the club, the player underlined that they did not comply
with the contractual terms and had a “confiscatory” nature.
37. In relation to the criminal proceedings, the player denied the validity of the evidence presented by
the club, as it appears to not be translated in an official FIFA language.
38. In addition, the player argued that there is no evidence that he was formally accused and that, in
any case, said accusation would be unrelated to his employment-related dispute. The player
considered that the club’s reference to said facts are “opportunistic”.
39. The player insisted in his claim for the following amounts:
- USD 16,000 as outstanding remuneration for the months of January and February 2020 (I.e. 8,000*2),
- USD 114,000, as compensation, corresponding to the residual value of the contract;
- USD 60,000, as loss of capacity to earn the other amounts of the contract.
40. As a result, the player requested the payment of USD 10 000 as compensation due to the
“deffamatory” counterclaim of the club, in addition to the other amounts.
41. The player’s new club (FC Kukesi) explained that it registered the player five months and thirteen
days after the end of his employment relationship with the former Club.
42. As a result, the new club rejected its possible liability to pay any amount as compensation.
43. According to the new club, “based on the Albanian K.C, it is clear that Article 17.2 (FIFA RSTP) does
not apply in this case, as it was the "RAMTHA" club that terminated the employment contract with
immediate effect with the player and not the player, who on the other hand, did not intend to leave
the club in order to sign with another club. Kukes has not committed any fault and was not involved
in any way in the termination of the employment relationship between the former club and the
Player.”
Page 7 of 14
REF 20-00609
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, such as the present one
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 January 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 13 December 2019, the Player and the Club
concluded an employment contract valid as from 3 December 2019 until 30 May 2021.
6.
Subsequently, the Chamber observed that the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the
club for breach of contract without just cause, arguing that the latter unilaterally terminated
the contract on 26 February 2020 via a termination notice.
7.
Conversely, the Chamber took note of the club’s position, which considered that the
termination was correctly performed and in accordance with the principle of ultima ratio,
arguing that the player was warned on several occasions about his absences, bad
behaviour and insubordination.
8.
In view of the above, the Chamber understood that the main issue at stake is to determine
whether the club had a just cause to terminate the contract on 26 February 2020.
Page 8 of 14
REF 20-00609
9.
In doing so, the Chamber th was eager to emphasise that, indeed, 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.With
this idea in mind, the Chamber recalled the main sequence of event that led to the
termination of the contract on 26 February 2020. In particular, the Chamber noted that,
on 20 February 2020, the Club asked the Player to express his opinion on a loan offer for
Al-Sareeh Sports Club.
10. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that, on 20 February 2020, the Club informed the
Player of a series of sanctions imposed against him due to alleged absences. The Chamber
noted, however, that there is no evidence that the payer was subject to any summons or
proceedings by means of which he could offer his position as to said sanctions. Hence,
the Chamber considered that the right of the player to be heard was not respected and,
as a consequence, considered that said sanctions could not be considered as valid.
11. In addition, the Chamber further noted that the termination of the contract on 26
February 2020 was performed by the club without any prior warning and only six days
after asking the player on his opinion of a possible loan offer. As a result, the Chamber
was of the opinion that the termination of the contract was not performed in accordance
with the principle of ultima ratio, since the club should have applied preliminary
measures before the termination.
12. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of
the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such
termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber
decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of
money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments
on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
13. In this respect, and before entering into the calculation of the payable compensation, the
Chamber wished to address the issue on whether there was any outstanding salary at the
date of the termination of the contract.
14. In this regard, and after carefully examining the information on file as well as the position
of the parties, the Chamber noted that there is no evidence that the salaries of January
and February 2020 (USD 16,000, i.e. 8,000*2).
Page 9 of 14
REF 20-00609
15. 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 16,000, as agreed in the contract.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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
observed that the contract stipulated that the Club had the possibility of terminating the
contract by paying two monthly salaries to the Player (art. 28 of the contract).
19. However, in relation to said clause, the Chamber noted that said clause is to the benefit
of the club only, i.e. it is not reciprocal as it does not grant the same rights to the player.
Therefore, the members of the Chamber decided that said clause cannot be taken into
consideration in the determination of the amount of compensation.
20. 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.
21. 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
allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract
in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
Page 10 of 14
REF 20-00609
22. 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. 26 February 2020 until 30 May 2021, and
concluded that the Claimant would have received in total USD 130,000. Consequently,
the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 130,000 serves as the basis for the final
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at
hand.
23. 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 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.
24. In this respect, the Chamber verified, on 8 August 2020, the player concluded a contract
with the Albanian club, FC Kukesi, valid as from the date of signature and for 2 years. In
particular, the Chamber noted that, according to said contract, the player was entitled to
ALL (Albanian Leke 40,000 per month) [approx. USD 387] Consequently, the Chamber
established that, from August 2020 until 31 May 2021, the player would have earned
387*10=USD 3,870.
25. In view of the above, the Chamber established that the value of the mitigated
compensation corresponds to USD 126,130 (i.e. 130,000-3,870).
26. 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 126,130 as compensation for breach
of contract in the case at hand.
27. Moreover, as a logical consequence of the above, the Chamber established that the
counterclaim of Al Ramtha had to be rejected.
28. 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.
29. 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.
Page 11 of 14
REF 20-00609
30. 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.
31. 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 12 of 14
REF 20-00609
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of Patrick Friday Eze, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Ramtha, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- USD 16,000 as outstanding remuneration;
- USD 126,130 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of Al Ramtha is rejected.
5.
The player is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant
bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
6.
Al Ramtha 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. Al Ramtha 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.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13 of 14
REF 20-00609
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