Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16807
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Sylvain
Gbohouo
BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)
CLAIMANT:
Sylvain Gbohouo, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Mawuli Kwaku Avorgah
RESPONDENT:
Al Batin, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16807
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
-
the Ivorian player Sylvain Gbohouo (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
-
the Saudi club Al Batin (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to the Saudi
Arabian Football Federation (hereinafter: the SAFF).
2.
On 29 August 2024, the Claimant and the Ivorian club, Africa Sports D’Abidjan signed an
employment contract valid as from 29 August 2024 until 30 June 2025.
3.
Between 30 August and 8 October 2024, the Claimant sent various letters to the
Respondent and to the SAFF requesting a copy of the alleged signed employment contract
he concluded with the Respondent.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4.
On 29 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
5.
In light of the evidence presented, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber did
not consider the events alleged by the Claimant to have occurred as established facts, but
instead as part of the Claimant’s allegations, which are detailed below
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
According to the Claimant, on 15 July 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent entered into
an employment agreement (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 10 August 2024 until
31 May 2025.
7.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a total amount
of USD 108,000.
8.
The Claimant further alleged that, on 19 August 2024, the Respondent sent him a
termination letter (hereinafter: the Termination Letter) to which he refused to sign.
9.
According to the Claimant, also on 19 August 2024, the Respondent booked the Claimant
a flight ticket to leave Saudi Arabia.
10. The Claimant alleged that there was a legal and binding employment relationship between
the parties since a mutually signed copy of the Contract was concluded. In addition, the
Claimant argued the Respondent refused to give him such copy.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16807
11. The Claimant further argued that the Respondent breached the Contract and sought
compensation for its residual value.
12. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“The player is hereby asking FIFA DRC to condemn the club to pay him USD 108'000
compensation for breach of contract with 5% interest p.a. starting from 19/08/2024.”
b. Position of the Respondent
13. According to the Respondent, it provided the Contract to the Claimant as draft for review,
but before signing it, the Claimant decided to return to his home country for family reasons.
14. The Respondent argued that it accepted this decision, and the Claimant arranged his own
return flight.
15. In the Respondent’s view, the Claimant’s own actions confirm the parties did not conclude
a binding contract, as he immediately signed a new contract with a club in his home
country.
16. The Respondent explicitly denied having sent the Termination Letter.
17. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“We kindly ask the FIFA DRC to reject the Player’s claim in its entirety.”
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
18. In his rejoinder, the Claimant alleged that the Termination Letter appears on the
Respondent’s letterhead which, in the Claimant’s view, indicated that the document was
drafted by the Respondent.
19. The Claimant alleged that on the WhatsApp conversations submitted, the Respondent
informed him that the Contract was awaiting approval from the ministry or federation,
contradicting its later claims that no contract existed.
20. In addition, the Claimant alleged that upon receiving the Termination Letter, the Claimant
immediately sought legal assistance, demonstrating his opposition to the Respondent’s
decision.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16807
21. Given these elements, the Claimant alleged that the termination was imposed by the
Respondent, and the Claimant did not voluntarily leave.
22. The Claimant request for relief remained unchanged.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
23. In its final comments, the Respondent reiterated its previous arguments by denying the
existence of a signed copy of the Contract and by asserting that the Claimant voluntarily
chose to play in his home country to end his career.
24. The Respondent also disputed the authenticity of the Termination Letter and WhatsApp
messages, questioning their origin and consistency.
25. The Respondent’s request for relief remained unchanged.
e. Information provided by the SAFF
26. On 11 December 2024, the FIFA general secretariat requested the SAFF to provide a signed
copy of the Contract allegedly concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent.
27. On 17 December 2024, the SAFF informed the FIFA general secretariat that no employment
contract existed between the parties.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16807
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 29 October 2024 and submitted for
decision on 7 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the January 2025
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.
29. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition), the Single Judge
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 Saudi club.
30. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), the
January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
31. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
32. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16807
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
33. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute whether a contractual relationship existed between them and,
if so, whether the Respondent terminated said relationship without just cause.
a.
Was the Contract effectively and validly concluded?
34. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant could not produce a fully executed
version of the Contract alleged to have been signed between the parties. By the same
token, no contract between the parties was registered with the SAFF and/or uploaded into
the TMS.
35. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Single Judge also noted that the Respondent stated that
it was interested in engaging the Claimant alleging that presented the Contract as a draft
to sign:
“1. The Club was interested in engaging the Player’s services and offered the Player to sign with it as a
professional footballer.
2. The Player was minded signing with the Club, he asked the Club to provide the draft of the contract
to review with his lawyers.
3. The Club furnished the draft of the contract to the Player just to review before signing.”
36. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge started by recalling his well-established
jurisprudence which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered
as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it
should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the
contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration
payable by the employer to the employee.
37. In casu, the Contract provides for the duration of the employment relationship and the
remuneration payable to the Claimant. Moreover, it clearly stipulates that the Claimant is
employed as a footballer with the Respondent.
38. The Single Judge noted that the document provided is unsigned. However, the Single Judge
underscored that the consent of the Respondent to enter into the Contract might be
inferred from other means, such as the fact that it was the Respondent who drafted in its
own letterheaded paper and sent the Contract to the Claimant for its review before signing
it.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16807
39. Thus, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Single Judge concluded
that all required elements were included in the document filed by the Claimant. In other
words, the Single Judge understood that the document filed by the Claimant indeed
included all the relevant information at the basis of an employment relationship between
contractual parties and therefore the Single Judge concluded that the Contract is in fact a
valid and binding employment contract and shall be considered in the case at stake, as the
contractual basis of the present dispute.
40. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the Contract is in fact a valid and binding
employment contract and shall be considered in the case at stake, as the contractual basis
of the present dispute.
b.
In the affirmative, which party breached the Contract?
41. In this respect, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant alleged that the Contract was
breached by the Respondent upon the issuance of the Termination Letter.
42. Conversely, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent argued that the Claimant had
informed the Respondent of his intention to spend the final years of his career in his home
country, thereby indicating a change of mind.
43. The Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant submitted the following undisputed
elements of evidence:
-
A WhatsApp conversation dated 19 August 2024 between the Claimant and his Legal
Representative, in which reference was made to a pre-contract and a “termination
agreement”. In this sense, the Single Judge noted that the Termination Letter bears the
same date, i.e., 19 August 2024.
-
A letter dated 30 August 2024 sent to the Respondent requesting a signed copy of the
Contract.
-
A letter dated 1 September 2024 sent to the SAFF, also requesting a signed copy of the
Contract.
-
A letter dated 12 September 2024 sent to the Respondent, with copy to the SAFF,
reiterating the above-mentioned request.
-
A further letter dated 8 October 2024 sent to the Respondent again requesting the
signed copy of the Contract.
44. Furthermore, the Single Judge paid particular attention to the disputed Termination Letter,
which, despite being unsigned by either party, contained the official letterhead and logo of
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16807
the Respondent, as well as its watermark. As a result, the Single Judge considered that it
could be established said Termination Letter had been prepared and issued by the
Respondent.
45. On the other hand, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent failed to submit any
evidence to substantiate its allegations.
46. In light of the above and taking into account the consistent conduct of the Claimant
throughout the aforementioned correspondence, the Single Judge concluded that the
Respondent terminated the Contract.
47. In addition, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent had not provided a valid
justification for the premature termination of the employment contract and must therefore
be held liable for its breach without just cause.
ii. Consequences
48. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
49. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so,
the Single Judge 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 and further objective criteria, including in particular,
the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant 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.
50. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the Contract at the basis of
the matter at stake.
51. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
52. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16807
the Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently,
the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 108,000 (i.e. the value of the Contract)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
53. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 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 Claimant’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
54. Indeed, the Claimant found employment with the Ivorian club Africa Sports d’Abidjan. In
accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Claimant was entitled to
approximately XAF 500,000 per month (i.e. equals to USD 848,78). Therefore, the Single
Judge concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD
8,487.80, that is, 10 times USD 848,78.
55. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay
the amount of USD 99,512.20 to the Claimant (i.e. USD 108,000 minus USD 8,487.80), which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
56. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 19 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
57. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
58. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16807
59. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
60. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
61. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
62. The Singel Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
63. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
64. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16807
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Sylvain Gbohouo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Batin, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 99,512.20 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19
August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16807
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 13