Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4945
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 October 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Abderrazzaq
Hamed-Allah
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Peter Lukasek (Slovakia), member
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Abderrazzaq Hamed-Allah, Morocco
Represented by Osama Al Sabbagh
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Al Nassr, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Bichara & Motta Advogados
INTERVENING PARTY:
Al Ittihad, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Ali Abbes & Mohamed Rokbani
Page 2
REF FPSD-4945
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 22 August 2018, the Moroccan player, Abderrazzaq Hamed-Allah (hereinafter: the
player or Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Saudi Arabian club Al Nassr (hereinafter:
the club or Respondent/Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract), valid from 23 August 2018 until to 22 August 2021.
2.
Pursuant to item 4 of the contract, the player was, inter alia, entitled to the following
remuneration:
-
Season 2019/2020: the first party shall comply with the payment of total net amount of
€3,000,000 (three million Euro) to be paid as follows:
(i)
Advance payment of €750,000 (Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand) on or before 30 September
of said season
(ii) 11 monthly salaries for twelve months equivalent to € 204,545 (two hundred four
thousand five hundred Forty Five Euro) for each month of the season as of October to
August.
-
Season 2020/2021: The first party shall comply with the payment of total net amount of
€3,000.000 (three million Euro) to be paid as follows:
(iii) Advance payment of € 750,000 (Seven Hundred fifty Thousand) on or before 30 September
of said season
(iv) 11 monthly salaries for twelve months equivalent to (204,545 (two hundred four thousand
five hundred Forty Five Euro) for each month of the season as of October to August
3.
On 5 August 2019, the parties concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the bonus agreement),
according to which the club undertook to pay to the player the following:
“The Club expressly and irrevocably agree to pay the Player the following bonus:
- Guaranteed amount of €2,000,000 (Two Million Euros) for every season to be paid in equal
instalments of €166,666 together with the monthly salaries from August 2019 until July 2021
- Each time the Player is top scorer of the SPL: €250,000 (Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Euros)
- Each time the Player is the Best Player of the SPL: €250,000 (Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Euros)
- Each time the Player score 10 goals of the SPL: €250,000 (Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Euros)
- Each time the Player score 15 goals of the SPL: €450,000 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand
Euros)
- Each time the Club is Champion of the SPL: €800,000 (eight hundred thousand Euros)
- Each time the Club is Champion of the Saudi Super Cup: €500,000 (Five hundred thousand
Euros)
Page 3
REF FPSD-4945
- Each time the Club is Champion of the AFC Champions League: €700,000 (seven hundred
thousand Euros)
- Each time the Club is Champion of the King Cup: €500,000 (Five hundred thousand Euros)”
4.
On 9 August 2019, the parties concluded an extension agreement (hereinafter: extension
agreement) by means of which they agreed to extend the term of the contract until
22 August 2022.
5.
Item 9 of the contract stipulated the following:
“Item 9: Termination of the Contract and Amendments made to it:
2) A contract may not be terminated during the sporting season, except with just cause
according to FIFA regulations. (…)
5) The Parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that in the event the Player terminates
the Contract without just cause and therefore breaches the contract before the expiry of its
term in accordance with Art.17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
the Player shall promptly pay to the Club, as compensation for such breach the amount of
Twenty million Euro (20.000.000) (“Breach Compensation”). The Parties expressly agree that
the Player shall be subject to sporting sanctions in accordance with Article 17 of FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in the event the breach of contracts takes
place within the protected period of the contract.”
6.
According to the player on 23 November 2021, the club sent him a termination notice,
indicating, inter alia, that the player has “disregarded all your obligations and contractual
duties”, that the club is “fed up with your inappropriate and unprofessional attitude” and
cannot tolerate any more acts of insubordination of such gravity hence, in accordance
with the club, it terminated the contract with just cause and with immediate effect.
7.
On 24 November 2021, the player replied to the termination notice, requesting that the
club withdraw the termination notice and for his re-integration to the team indicating;
“considering that the recent tension between the parties may have translated into
inconsiderate actions from the Club’s management, which could jeopardise the Player’s career.
The tension first originated from the Club’s repeated and severe breaches of contract over two
years and the Player attempted to find a better solution instead of a brutal contract
termination in the middle of the season.”
8.
On 28 November 2021, the player sent a default notice to the club to request the payment
of his outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 4,914,126.
9.
On 30 November 2021, the club replied to reject the player’s allegations and invited him
to find an amicable solution to the situation, however to no avail.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4945
10. On 16 December 2021, the player and the Saudi Arabian club Al Ittihad concluded an
employment agreement valid from 2 January 2022 until 30 June 2023, for the following
monthly salary:
Monthly Salary from 02-01-2022 until 30-06-2022
Euro
333,333
Monthly Salary from 01-07-2022 until 30-06-2023
Euro
300,000
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 25 January 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
Position of the Player
12. According to the player, the termination of his contract was surprising as at the time the
club failed to pay his salaries for the months of August until November 2021, furthermore
the club ignored prior default notices sent to the it by the player regarding his overdue
remuneration.
13. The player indicated that “due to the extremely erratic payments from the Club, calculating
the overdue payables was an extremely challenging task; we therefore adjusted some
remuneration items claimed in our claim, particularly due to the very high number of goals
score during the season 2019/2020; which were not fully accounted for in the notice of the 1
October 2020.”
14. The requests for relief of the player, were to establish that the club:
(a) terminated the contract without just cause in the middle of the season and without prior notice
(b) had been in aggravated, repeated and abusive breach of contract without any justification,
and attempted to set-off significant overdue payables against an abusive -non-reciprocalliquidated damages clause in the amount of EUR 20M,
(c) must pay to the player overdue remuneration in the amount of 5,952,380 EUR corresponding
to:
-
EUR 91,692 since 1 April 2020 - Unpaid remuneration (Covid)
EUR 183,239 since 1 May 2020 - Unpaid remuneration (Covid).
EUR 183,239 since 1 June 2020- Unpaid remuneration (Covid).
EUR 166,293 since 1 July 2020- Unpaid remuneration (Covid).
EUR 371,211 since 1 September 2021- Salary of August .
EUR 916,666 since 1 October 2021- Salary of September.
EUR 371,211 since 1 November 2021- Salary of October
Page 5
REF FPSD-4945
-
EUR 318,829 since 1 December 2021- Salary of November
(d) must, in addition pay to the Player Mitigated Compensation in the amount of EUR 674,235 and
Additional Compensation in the amount of EUR 2,227,266 resulting in a Total Compensation
in the amount of EUR 2,901,501.
(e) must pay to the player his outstanding bonuses in the total amount of EUR 3,350,000 as
follows:
-
Super Cup bonus EUR 500,000 since 3 February 2020.
25 goals bonus EUR 250,000 since 10 April 2020.
30 goals bonus EUR 450,000 since 19 September 2020.
Top Scorer bonus EUR 250,000 since 8 October 2020.
40 goals bonus 250,000 since 17 October 2020
Super Cup bonus EUR 500,000 since 1 March 2021.
45 goals bonus 450,000 since 8 March 2021.
55 goals bonus 250,000 since 19 June 2021.
60 goals bonus 450,000 since 25 September 2021.
15. Additionally, the player requested 5% interest p.a. on the above amounts from the date
of termination of the contract for compensation and from their due dates for outstanding
remuneration.
b.
Position of the club & counterclaim
16. In its reply to the claim, the club mentioned that item 9 of the contract expressly
established circumstances under which the club would be entitled to terminate the
contract with just cause, “as well as stipulated a “Breach Compensation” value to be paid by
the Player in case he terminated the contract without just cause.”
17. According to the club, since the beginning of the employment relationship the player,
displayed a “pattern of misbehaviours, which have ultimately culminated in an unsustainable
environment in the continuation of a healthy employment relationship.”
18. Moreover, the club indicated that in the middle of 2021, “specialized press started reporting
about a possible transfer of the Player to Ittihad”
19. The club mentioned that on 28 September 2021, during the preparation trainings, the
player “claimed to be feeling some pain and refused to train with the team”, whereafter a
medical appointment was scheduled for the player for 29 September 2021, which he
failed to attend.
20. On 30 September 2021, after the player’s medical appointment had been rescheduled,
the Magnetic Resonance Imaging - MRI showed that the player was fully fit.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4945
21. According to the club, it was faced with another “situation of misbehavior by the player, the
club finally decided to impose disciplinary measures, namely, to deduct 40% (forty per cent) of
the Player’s salary, according to the bylaw of offenses and penalties of the first team of the
Club and served him a final warning to refrain from such abusive conducts in the future. In
any case, in that final warning, the Club reserved its rights to impose further sanctions should
it deem so appropriate in view of the Player’s past conduct.“
22. The player displayed the following on social media:
-
“On 2 October 2021, the Agent of the Player made a post in social media insulting the Football
Executive Manager of the Club, Mr. Hussain Abdulghani. The club proceeded to reprimand the
Player and requested to remove the post, which still remains online.
-
On 14 October 2021, the Agent of the Player posted on social media “There is a possibility he
is leaving next week.”
23. The club furthermore indicated that on 6 November 2021, the club gave its players 4 days
off and the player travelled to Morocco “on the same day but failed to attend training camp
starting on the 10 November 2021 without any authorisation.”
24. The club mentioned that:
-
“On 20 November 2021, in the dressing room after a match, the Player kicked a board and
insulted the coach, Mr. Marcelo Salazar.
-
On 22 November 2021, the Club sent a letter to the Player demanding an explanation
regarding the incident occurred after the match.“
25. Moreover, throughout November 2021, the club mentioned that “the player sent a series
of threatening messages to the club’s C.E.O, Mr. Ahmad Alghamdi, demanding his Employment
Contract to be terminated and threatening to physically harm the C.E.O in addition to causing
further trouble within the Club should his demands not be met. It must be stressed that there
are parallel criminal proceedings in the domestic courts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”.
26. On 23 November 2021, the club concluded it had no other choice than to formally
terminate the contract with the player, according to which it informed the player “of its
decision to terminate the Employment Contract with just cause, but also requested the
payment of EUR 20,000,000.00 (twenty million Euros) as compensation agreed in the
Employment Contract and asked the Player to return the keys of his apartment and car, which
had been provided by the Club.”
Page 7
REF FPSD-4945
27. On 24 November 2021, the player replied and indicated that up to EUR 4,000,000 in
overdue payables is owed by the club to him and he requested to be reincorporated into
the club.
28. On 30 November 2021, the club sent a final letter to the player confirming its reasons for
the just cause termination.
29. As to the overdue amounts presented in the player’s claim - in this regard, the club argued
that the total value that was in fact overdue at the time of the termination by the club was
EUR 3,391,679.
30. The club explained that pursuant to the instructions from the Saudi Football Federation
and pursuant to the club’s internal circular sent on 15 April 2020 there was a Covid 19
salary reduction attributable to the months March, April, May and June 2020 as indicated
in the table below:
Deduction of
COVID
Month
2020 Mar
2020 Apr
2020 May
2020 Jun
Total
Salary (EUR)
51.136
102.273
102.273
51.136
306.818
Agreement
41.667
83.333
83.333
41.667
249.999
Total
92.803
185.606
185.606
92.803
556.817
Percentage
25%
50%
50%
25%
31. As to the bonus due to the player, the club explained the following:
BONUS 2019/2020 Value owed
Season
Top Scorer
Value paid
EUR 250,000 EUR 250,000 (Doc 22)
Outstanding amount
0
More than 20 goals EUR 300,000 X
SPL (Contract)
EUR 300,000
More than 10 goals EUR 250,000 X
SPL (Agreement)
EUR 250,000
More than 15 goals EUR 450,000 EUR 450,000 (Doc 22)
SPL
0
(Agreement)
Saudi Super Cup (4 EUR 500,000 EUR 23,256 (Doc 15)
Jan 2020)
(Agreement)
EUR 476,744
Page 8
REF FPSD-4945
Total
-EUR 1,026,744
BONUS 2020/2021 Value owed
Season
Value paid
Outstanding amount
More than 10 goals EUR 250,000
(11
goals) (Agreement)
Saudi Super Cup EUR 500,000
(30 Jan
2021) (Agreement)
Total
EUR 750,000
X
EUR 250,000
X
EUR 500,000
-EUR 750,000
32. In conclusion, the club requested that the DRC:
a)
b)
c)
Reject the Player’s claim in totum;
Declare that the Employment Contract between the Parties was terminated by the Club with
just cause on 23 November 2021.
Order the Club to pay a maximum of EUR 3,391,679.30 (three million, three hundred and
ninety-one thousand, six hundred and seventy-nine Euros and thirty cents) as overdue
amounts
Subsidiarily, in case the COVID-19 salary reductions are not taken into consideration:
d)
e)
f)
Order the Club to pay a maximum of EUR 3,948,497.30 (three million, nine hundred and fortyeight thousand, four hundred and ninety-seven Euros and thirty cents)
Establish that no additional Compensation shall be paid by the Club
Order the Player to bear all administrative, procedural costs and expenses related to the
present claim (if any).
33. The club submitted a counterclaim against the player and his new club Al-Ittihad as it
deemed that it had just cause to terminate the contract and requested the following relief
from the FIFA DRC.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Admit the present claim
Declare that the Employment Contract between the Parties was terminated by the Club with
just cause on 23 November 2021
Hold the Player liable for breaching article 14 and article 17, par. 1 of the FIFA RSTP in light of
its unjustified and repeated breaches of contract
Declare the Player and Al-Ittihad FC as jointly and severally liable for the payment of
compensation to Al Nassr Football Club for the termination of the Employment Contract
without just cause, in the following amounts:
Page 9
REF FPSD-4945
i.
ii.
iii.
e)
f)
c.
EUR 3,244,096.92 (three million two hundred forty-four thousand ninety-six Euros and ninetytwo cents) as the residual value of the Employment Contract
EUR 3,500,000.00 (three million five hundred thousand Euros) corresponding to the
unamortised transfer fee paid by the Claimant for the acquisition of the Player
EUR 6,915,850.00 (six million nine hundred and fifteen thousand, eight hundred fifty Euros) as
replacement costs.
Order the Player and Al-Ittihad FC to pay 5% (five per cent) default interest per annum over the
amounts above until the date of effective payment.
Order the Player and Al-Ittihad FC to bear all administrative, procedural costs and expenses
related to the present claim (if any).
Player’s reply to counterclaim
34. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player indicated that the club’s “submissions confirm
that they had been in aggravated, repeated and abusive breach of contract without any
justification.”
35. The player reiterated that the club terminated the contract without just cause in the
middle of the season and without prior notice and that their allegations are either
“irrelevant, inaccurate or misrepresented in bad faith.”
36. Moreover, the player mentioned that “the club has stated in their claim that at the very
beginning of the employment relationship, the player repeatedly demonstrated a pattern of
misbehaviour, which ultimately culminated into an unsustainable environment for the
continuation of a healthy employment relationship. These accusations are found not to be true
and are inaccurate. The relationship was rather positive with the early administration, which
was very professional, appreciative, and respectful to the Player.”
37. The player argued that the club’s counterclaim is mainly based on WhatsApp discussions
that were part of submissions to the Saudi Penal Court which counterclaim was filed after
the Saudi Penal Court had rendered its decision. “Consequently, the counterclaim or most
of it should simply be disregarded.”
38. According to the player, the club and its CEO are “forum shopping” as the Club’s CEO filed
a claim before the Saudi Penal Court on 9 January 2022 regarding the above-mentioned
communications – “according to the principle of “litispendency”, a case pending before civil
courts cannot be dealt with by sports arbitration.” Therefore, the private communications
between the player and the club’s CEO cannot be taken into account by the DRC, as they
have already been submitted to the Saudi Penal Court, which rendered a decision that
could be appealed. Moreover, the player mentioned that if the DRC “considers these
communications in the present case, it would be violating its longstanding principle of
forbidding “forum shopping”; especially given, that the case is a disciplinary matter which could
currently be under review by the SAFF.”
Page 10
REF FPSD-4945
39. In conclusion, the player requested the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
d.
“To totally reject the Club’s counterclaim, to consider it an obvious “forum shopping” case,
especially the elements that were submitted to the Saudi Penal Court and rejected by the latter
prior to the Club’s counterclaim,
Alternatively, in the unlikely event that the aforementioned elements are taken into
consideration and analysed, to totally reject the Clubs’ allegations that the Player forced the
termination in any way,
To establish that the Club terminated the contract without just cause in the middle of the
season and without prior notice,
To established that the Club had been in aggravated, repeated and abusive breach of contract
without any justification, and attempted to set-off significant overdue payables against an
abusive -non-reciprocal- liquidated damages clause in the amount of EUR 20M,
To establish that the Club must pay to the Player overdue remuneration in the amount of
EUR 5,406,205 (as detailed in his claim),
To establish that the Club must, in addition pay to the Player Mitigated Compensation in the
amount of EUR 674,235 and Additional Compensation in the amount of EUR 2,227,266
resulting in a Total Compensation in the amount of EUR 2,901,501.
5% annual interest on all the above: from the date of the termination of contract
(23 November 2021)
Final comments of the club
40. On 13 April 2022, the club wrote a letter to FIFA requesting a second round of
submissions. However, according to the information on file this request was not granted
by the FIFA administration. An email from FIFA was sent on 21 April 2021 to the parties
informing the parties that we will revert to the parties regarding the next steps to be
taken.
41. The club in proceeded to submit its final comments together with 104 Exhibits.
42. In this context, the club, inter alia, mentioned that “after the submission of the Club’s claim
and the statement of defence against the Player’s claim, new facts and information extremely
relevant for the dispute have arisen. In specific, information was received regarding new
payments made by the Club to the Player, facts and information regarding Ittihad’s
inducement of the Player’s breach of contract, which were included in a new claim submitted
against Ittihad before the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF) on 28 March 2022 and
circumstances regarding the negotiations between the Player and the Club of all the relevant
employment-related agreements.”
43. The club amended its requests for relief as follows:
a)
Reject the Player’s claim in totum
Page 11
REF FPSD-4945
b)
c)
i.
ii.
iii.
d)
e)
f)
g)
Declare the Employment Contract between the Parties was lawfully terminated by the Club with
just cause on 23 November 2021
Order the Player to pay compensation to Al Nassr in the amount of EUR 20,000,000 (twenty
million Euros), corresponding to the liquidated damages stipulated on Item 5.3 of the
Employment Contract or, subsidiarily, in an amount to be fixed by the DRC taking into account
the following head of damages, as specified on Section IV.2 above:
Mitigated Residual value of the Employment Contract: EUR 3,340,899.00 (three million three
hundred forty thousand, eight hundred ninety-nine Euros).
Unamortised acquisition costs: EUR656,250.00 (six hundred fifty-six thousand, two hundred
fifty Euros);
Replacement costs: USD6,000,000.00 (six million US Dollars).
Declare Al-Ittihad FC as jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation to Al Nassr
Football Club
Impose Al-Ittihad sanctions under article 18.3 of the FIFA RSTP
Order the Player and Al-Ittihad FC to pay 5% (five per cent) default interest per annum over the
amounts above until the date of effective payment
Determine that the Player shall only be entitled to outstanding remuneration in the maximum
amount of EUR 1,566,113.63 (one million five hundred sixty-six thousand, one hundred
thirteen Euros and sixty-three cents)
Subsidiarily, in case the Employment Contract is deemed to have been terminated without just
cause by the Club:
h)
Establish that the Player shall only be entitled to a maximum compensation of EUR 331,098.92
(three hundred thirty-one thousand, ninety-eight Euros and ninety-two cents), corresponding
to the mitigated value between the Employment Contract and Ittihad’s Employment Contract
In any event:
i)
Order the Club to bear all administrative and procedural costs related to this procedure (if
any).
e.
Player’s reply to final comments of the club
44. In reply to the club’s final comments, the player reiterated the relief sought as per his
claim and mentioned the following:
“In preamble, the new evidence presented by the Club aims to show possibly illegal negotiations
during the Protected Period. Even if there were such negotiations -quod non-, the question of
“inducement” is totally irrelevant to the case and the analysis should focus on which party was
in breach of contract. We repeat that the Player was performing his contract with great
Page 12
REF FPSD-4945
patience and resilience whereas the Club was breaching its financial obligations on a monthly
basis.
Even through the unlawful decision taken by the SAFF against the Player, there is not a single
proof of contract negotiations between the Player and his new club within the Protected Period.
And when some sporadic declarations of interest took place, they were clearly preceded by
negotiations between the two clubs in June 2021, clearly acknowledged by the Club’s Chairman.
Based on the very evidence submitted by the Club, there were no illegal negotiations at all, no
contract length, no salary mentioned, the player clearly indicated that Al Nassr can be
contacted directly by any club as he had been informed that they would let him go.
Assuming that the conversations of 15 August 2021 is reliable evidence -which cannot be
proven as the Club may cut have cut extracts- there is nothing even suggesting that the Player
wants to force a termination. Instead, the Player was still alternatively hoping a renewal (!) with
Al Nassr and the President of the Club refused, clearly indicating that they were open to a
transfer.”
45. As to the bonuses the player indicated the following:
“Regarding the bonuses, we first note that the Club is denying in bad faith the existence of
Exhibit P3, which is an amended version of the agreement, granting additional scope to the
goal bonuses to all competitions instead of just the Saudi Premier League. Assuming that the
SPL mention was misleadingly deleted by someone in bad faith, why would the Club add
stamps and signatures on the right-hand side of the document without any reason? This
document was never denied in any previous communications between the Parties prior to the
current proceedings, which is sufficient as a proof.
The wording of the clause is quite clear: each time the Player scores 10 goals (all competitions
included), he shall receive EUR 250,000 and each time he scores 15 goals, he shall receive an
additional EUR 450,000. In other words, every time the Player scores 15 goals, he shall receive
EUR 700,000. This was the oral agreement between the Parties and although the clause could
have been better drafted by the Club, if there is any ambiguity, it shall go against the latter.
In terms of the amounts promised to the Player, they are in line with his salary: as his annual
net salary is EUR 5 million, why would EUR 1,400,000 of goal bonuses be extravagant if he
reached the outstanding total of 30 goals? Or EUR 1,650,000 in case he reaches the almost
unreachable total of 40 goals?
Our position is further supported by the doctrine Contra proferentem: where a provision is
ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the
party who provided the wording, i.e., the Club who drafted such provisions.”
Page 13
REF FPSD-4945
f.
Final comments of the player
46. On 23 May 2022, the player informed FIFA that he became aware that the club filed
another claim before the Saudi Arabian Football Federation Professionalism Committee
on 28 March 2022, mentioning:
“The said claim was lodged against Ittihad (and Ittihad’s Management) as well as against the
Player Abderrazzaq Hamed-Allah. It is signed by the Club’s CEO Mr Ahmed Al Ghamdi and
stamped with Al-Nassr’s official stamp, confirming that the claim was indeed registered before
the SAFF.
Consequently, we would be grateful if you would consider this new evidence (Exhibit P31) as
another proof of “forum shopping” and another element conducive to the dismissal of AlNassr’s counterclaim against the Player and his new club.”
g.
Club’s reply to final comments of the player
47. In reply to the additional evidence provided by the player, the club highlighted the
following points regarding the allegations made by the player:
(a)
Player’s allegations of “forum shopping”
-
The club indicated that the argument presented by the Player, to which the Additional
Evidence refers, infers that the claim submitted in the Saudi Arabian Professionalism and
Player Status Committee (SAFF) would be conducive to the dismissal of the club’s
counterclaim as it was probative of “forum shopping” - this allegation, is manifestly
incorrect.
In this regard it mentioned that the SAFF has the competence to judge disciplinary cases
under its own regulations - all elements treated in the SAFF PSC Decision were solely
under the scope of the local disciplinary regulations of the SAFF.
-
(b)
The SAFF PSC decision and investigations by the department of criminal evidence of the
Saudi Arabian police clearly prove the existence of negotiations between Ittihad and the
player prior to the termination of the employment contract:
-
In the SAFF PSC proceedings, technical reports were conducted, which determined the
authenticity of the messages and recordings attributing the voices of the Player, AlIttihad’s Football Director Mr. Hamid bin Musa Al-Balawi and Ittihad’s Football Manager
Mr. Mishaal bin Ahmed Al-Saeed, where applicable, whereby they negotiate, through the
mediation of Mr. Al Dosari, a move of the Player to Ittihad.
-
The SAFF PSC Decision confirms, with resort to forensic departments of the Department
of Criminal Evidence of the Saudi Arabian Police, that such negotiations clearly occurred
Page 14
REF FPSD-4945
whilst the Player was under contract at the Club and under the protected period (SAFF
PSC Decision, page 43):
“Whereas it is established to the committee that negotiation in violation of the provisions of the
regulation, took place several times during the validity of the player’s contract with Al-Nassr FC,
during the protected period, during the validity of the sports season and the start of official
competitions, and by more than one official in Al-Ittihad Club (Hamed Al-Balawi and Mishaal
Al-Saeed)”
-
That the negotiations between Ittihad and the player showed that the player’s was to
leave Al Nassr to join Ittihad - when analysing all of the Player’s conversations with Ittihad’s
officials from the middle of 2021 onwards, it is apparent that the Player never refers to
the overdue payable as a potential reason to leave, but rather that he was discontent at
the Club and “wants a new challenge” , as also evidenced by the Player’s agent post on 17
August 2021, stating, “it’s time for a new experience in a peaceful environment” .
(c)
The player’s misbehavior aimed at forcing the club to terminate his contract:
The list indicated below, organized chronologically, is a summary of all the misbehavior
episodes already stated by the Club in the previous submissions and, at the same time,
addresses the baseless justifications and denials to such episodes contained in player’s
answer:
-
“After the vacation period following the end of the 2018/19 season, all players were requested
to return to the Club on 7 July 2019, for the start of the new season’s training sessions. However,
the Player failed to return on the scheduled date as well as failed to respond to the Club’s
communications.
-
In November 2019, the Player had an altercation with authorities and employees of the Riyadh
airport which resulted in a criminal procedure
-
On 3 December 2020, the Player had a disrespectful gesture with the captain’s armband during
the match against Abha Club by handing it over to a fellow teammate without any reason:
-
In the end of December 2020, The Player travelled to Morocco without the express
authorization of the Club.
-
On 16 December 2020, the Player had a fight with his teammate Sultam Al-Ghannam
-
On 29 September 2021, the Player failed to join the team’s travel to Abha city for the match
against Abha FC on 30 September 2021
Page 15
REF FPSD-4945
-
During the 2nd and 3rd of November 2021, the Player proffered multiple unwarranted insults
to the Club’s CEO, Mr. Ahmed Al - Ghamdi, which led to the installation of the Saudi Penal case
in 2022. The Player does not rebut these messages in his Answer.
-
On 6 November 2021, the Club gave its players 4 (four days) off. The Player travelled to his
home country of Morocco on the same day in order to receive medical treatment and for
leisure but failed however to timely return and attend training camp starting on 10 November
2021 in Al Khobar, without any authorization. The Player only came back to Riyadh on 14
November 2021, having thus missed the training camp and 5 practice sessions without any
authorization.
-
On 20 November 2021, in the dressing room after a match against Al-Raed, the Player kicked
a board and insulted the coach, Mr. Marcelo Salazar, as well as continued inciting others and
creating a bad atmosphere
-
On 22 November 2021, the Player insulted and threatened Club’s CEO
-
On 23 November 2021, after being notified in relation to a morning training session, the Player
adduced being injured and requested to be sent to treatment instead of training, to which the
Club replied that there was a medical staff available in the morning training session. The Player
does not rebut this in his Answer.
-
The Player attended training without requesting medical attention and mocked the session by
posting in social media that the training should have been at 5 or 3 AM instead of 9 AM. The
Player does not rebut this in his Answer.
-
in the morning of the 23rd of November, exhausted by the Player’s constant misbehaviours
and threatening messages, the Club had already decided that the employment relationship
had reached an unsustainable situation and, therefore, started drafting the Termination
Letter.”
48. In conclusion, the club stipulated the following:
“The Claimant hereby understands that FIFA shall consider all facts shown in the SAFF
proceedings as forensically proven - the Club terminated the Employment Contract with just
cause due to various misbehaviours which have been amply and extensively proven through
the Club’s Final Comments and the present submission.
This abusive conduct by the Player was aimed at the Club with the impetus of rescinding the
Employment Contract, so that the Player would be free to go to Ittihad.
The Player’s intention to join Ittihad is demonstrated by the wide evidence presented by the
Club in its Final Comments and, in specific, the records of the conversations maintained
between the Player and Ittihad’s officials, whose veracity and authenticity was confirmed by
Page 16
REF FPSD-4945
SAFF PSC with the cooperation of the Criminal Evidence Department of the Saudi Arabian
Police.
Thus, there can be no room for doubt that the Player was negotiating with Ittihad while under
contract with Al Nassr, that he wanted to leave Al Nassr due to personal reasons, all of which
were explained above and in the Club’s Final Comments and that, given he did not succeed in
convincing the Club to accept a mutual termination of the Employment Contract, initiated a
tactic of continuously misbehave in an abusive conduct aimed at forcing the Club to terminate
the contract so he could join Ittihad.
As soon the Player got what he wanted, i.e., the termination of contract from the Club, he
informed Ittihad “Okay, I'm free to go to any team, my brother, if the people have a desire to
let me join their team, let them talk to me.”
In this regard, the judgment made in the SAFF dispute shall guide FIFA as to the Player’s true
reasons for his multiple breaches of contract which ultimately led to the Club’s just cause
termination, as explained in the Club’s previous submissions.”
h.
Intervening Party
49. The comments from the intervening party, inter alia, were as follows:
“Without any prejudice to the merit and substance of the litigation between the two main
parties we submit the following brief of response.
Al ITTIHAD Club has concluded a contract with the player on 16/12/2021 i.e., after 23 days from
the end of his contractual relationship with AL Nassr Club.
As a prelaminar remark it is crystally evident that Club Al Nassr has terminated unilaterally the
contract by sending a termination notification to the player (exhibit 1).
Consequently, the termination was not made by the player but by the club and hence the
provisions of article 17 RSTP regarding the liability of the new club cannot be applied because
the article 17 RSTP is directed against the notifying party and not against the notified party.
In addition, it appears that the premature termination of the contract was made by the club Al
Nassr without just cause according to the reasons inserted in the letter of termination of the
contract sent by the respondent counter-claimant on 23 November 2021.
In conclusion, Al ITTIHAD cannot be liable to pay any kind of amount to the respondent counterclaimant firstly because the latter is the party who notified the termination and secondly
because the termination of the contract by AL NASSR was made without just cause.”
i.
Additional Information
50. On 2 and 4 August 2022, the player provided information relating to a decision which was
issued against the player on 2 August 2022 by the SAFF PSC, suspending the player for
Page 17
REF FPSD-4945
four months. The player made a request to FIFA, to “cancel” the decision of SAFF
concerning his suspension.
51. In this regard, it should be noted that after lodgment of the FIFA claim (25 January 2022),
a further complaint was filed at the Saudi Arabian Football Federation Professionalism
and Players' Status Committee (SAFF PPSC) by the club on 28 March 2022.
52. In short, the reason the club filed a complaint at the SAFF PPSC against the player and
various officials of Al Ittihad was for apparent violation of the national regulations,
specifically:
“Violation of the Saudi Arabian Football Federation and its Hamid Al-Balawi, Mishaal Al-Saeed.
and the Moroccan player Abdul Razzaq Hamdallah, to the paragraph (5) of Article 34 of the
Regulations of the Professionalism and Players' Status, which stipulates that: 'The new club
that wishes to transfer, a player whose contract is valid with the current club and who has not
entered the six-month period, must obtain the approval of the current club with a written
,request before commencing negotiations with the player or mediator, in addition to providing
the Committee with a copy of the letters exchanged between the two clubs in this regard
and in the event that written approval is given, the player's current club is not entitled to give
approval to another club until 15 days have passed from the date of approval”
53. In this context, a decision was issued against the player on 2 August 2022, by means of
which the player was suspended for four months and have to pay a fine of SAR 300,000
for alleged negotiations during the Protected Period.
54. The above information was provided to the FIFA Disciplinary to confirm if there is a need
to intervene/address this matter, according to which the following response was
provided:
“Regarding your inquiry, please kindly note that, in principle, the Disciplinary Committee can
only intervene for potential violations of Art 18 (3) of the RSTP when there is not a contractual
breach and a related claim. In this context, after reading the chain of emails, we do not appear
to be in any position to intervene in the present matter since it seems to be a purely contractual
dispute.”
Page 18
REF FPSD-4945
III. 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 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 25 January 2022 and
submitted for decision on 17 October 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of
the June 2022 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 members of the Chamber 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 lit.
b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players October 2022 edition), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an
Moroccan player and a Saudi Arabian club.
3.
However, the members of the Chamber remarked that though the club submitted a case
against the player and the CEO of Al Ittihad at the Jeddah Penal Court in Saudi Arabia, it
appears that the said case does not relate to the merits of this case for outstanding
remuneration and a counterclaim for compensation for breach of contract.
4.
Additionally, the members of the Chamber observed that a further claim was opened by
the club before the Saudi Arabian Football Federation Professionalism Committee on
28 March 2022. However, the Chamber remarked that such a claim was lodged after the
submission of the current claim at FIFA. Accordingly, it established that it was competent
to deal with the present matter.
5.
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 Players (October 2022 edition)
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 January 2022, 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
6.
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
Page 19
REF FPSD-4945
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
7.
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-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
8.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether the club had
just cause to prematurely terminate the contract with the player on 23 November 2021.
9.
The Chamber noted that the player maintained that the employment contract was
severely breached by the club over the previous two years, however he was willing to
continue to provide his services to the club and accordingly requested the latter to
withdraw its termination notice of 23 November 2021 and to reintegrate him back into
the team.
10. The Chamber observed that the club, on the other hand, rejected the player’s claim and
lodged a counterclaim arguing that it had just cause to terminate the contract based on
of a pattern of misbehaviours displayed by the player since the commencement of the
contract, on the basis of this it could no longer maintain a healthy employment
relationship with the player. In this context the club mentioned that in accordance with
item 5 of the contract, the player inter alia, undertook to comply with the laws, regulations,
decisions, and circulars issued by SAFF and FIFA and sports traditions & provisions of
these regulations and to "enjoy sportsmanship and sporting morals and to be an example to
be followed on and off the field of play".
11. The DRC acknowledged that the player rejected the club’s counterclaim and that Al Ittihad
(the Intervening party) had endorsed the player’s position by rejecting the counterclaim as
well.
12. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine as to whether
the club had terminated the contract on 23 November 2021 with or without just cause.
13. In accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, as a general rule,
only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a
contract without notice. In other words, only when there are objective criteria, which do
Page 20
REF FPSD-4945
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.
14. Firstly, the DRC addressed the alleged misbehaviours of the player highlighted by the club
and remarked that despite the evidence pointing towards instances of misbehaviour by
the player, which is not in any way condoned by the members of the Chamber, the club
seems to have failed to make an attempt to implement more lenient measures to address
the specific behaviour prior to terminating the contract i.e., suspension or disciplinary
sanctions as per its laws and regulations it refers to in order to sanction the specific
misconduct which seems to be at the basis of the termination of the contract by the club.
15. Moreover, the Chamber noted that at the date of termination of the contract, i.e.,
23 November 2021, the club was significantly in breach of its payment obligations. In fact,
even though the exact amount of overdue payable is disputed, the club does appear to
accept that it owed the player at least an amount of EUR 3,391,679.30.
16. Taking the above into account and the documentation on file, the members of the
Chamber decided that the unilateral termination of the contract by the club was
premature and cannot be justified and accordingly concluded that the club had no just
cause to terminate the contract with the player on 23 November 2021.
17. The Chamber therefore held that the club is to be held liable for the consequences of
terminating the contract without just cause and as a result, the player is entitled to his
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
18. In consideration of all the above, the Chamber decided that the counterclaim of the club
shall be rejected.
ii. Consequences
19. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
20. When it comes to the assessment of outstanding remuneration, the Chamber noted that
the club had argued that certain legitimate salary reductions had been carried out by the
club due to COVID-19 for the months of March, April, May and June 2022. The Chamber
therefore started by addressing whether these reductions should be accepted.
21. In this regard, according to the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines, unilateral decisions to vary the
terms of an agreement are allowed if they are made in line with national law or
Page 21
REF FPSD-4945
permissible within the CBA structures. Thus, if the parties involved cannot reach an
amicable settlement, or the issue is not addressed in national law and CBAs with a players’
union are not an option, a variation to the contract can only be allowed if it is made
in good faith, is reasonable and proportionate.
22. In the matter at hand, the DRC noted that it appears that the club justified the unilateral
reduction of the player’s remuneration on the basis of certain resolutions issued by the
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development in Saudi Arabia. However, the
members of the Chamber wish to emphasise that the burden of proof lies on the club to
subsequently demonstrate that any unilateral variation was a valid exercise under these
resolutions. A simple reference to such resolutions to justify the unilateral reduction will
not be sufficient. What is more, the DRC brings in mind that the parties agreed upon the
exclusive application of the FIFA regulations by means of the employment contract in case
of settlement of their dispute.
23. Moreover, the club failed to provide any evidence highlighting the financial impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic by means of providing financial report/figures and, further to this, it
failed to provide evidence indicating its attempt to reach a proposal or negotiate with the
player regarding a potential salary reduction which is also a clear obligation under the
applicable FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines.
24. Bearing in mind the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that the salary
reduction applied by the club cannot be accepted.
25. In light of the above and of the remaining evidence on file, the Chamber concluded that
the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination amounts to EUR 1,711,269.
26. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e.,
EUR 1,711,269, corresponding to the following:
-
EUR 45,517 payable by 31 March 2020
EUR 181,604 payable by 30 April 2020
EUR 181,604 payable by 31 May 2020
EUR 166,293 payable by 30 June 2020
EUR 371,211 payable by 31 August 2021
EUR 75,000 payable by 30 September 2021
EUR 371,211 payable by 31 October 2021
EUR 318,829 payable by 30 November 2021
27. Taking into consideration the player’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
Page 22
REF FPSD-4945
5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
28. On the basis of the evidence on file, the Chamber also decided to award to the player the
bonuses as contractually stipulated in the total amount of EUR 1,426,744:
-
EUR 476,744 as Saudi Super Cup bonus January 2020
EUR 500,000 as Saudi Super Cup bonus January 2021
EUR 450,000 for achieving more than 15 goals in the 2019/2020 season
29. In regard to the entitlement to bonus, the DRC recalled the terms of the bonus agreement
concluded between the parties on 5 August 2019, according to which the club undertook
to pay to the player the following:
“The Club expressly and irrevocably agree to pay the Player the following bonus:
- Guaranteed amount of €2,000,000 (Two Million Euros) for every season to be paid in equal
instalments of €166,666 together with the monthly salaries from August 2019 until July 2021
- Each time the Player is top scorer of the SPL: €250,000 (Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Euros)
- Each time the Player is the Best Player of the SPL: €250,000 (Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Euros)
- Each time the Player score 10 goals of the SPL: €250,000 (Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Euros)
- Each time the Player score 15 goals of the SPL: €450,000 (Four Hundred Fifty Thousand
Euros)
- Each time the Club is Champion of the SPL: €800,000 (eight hundred thousand Euros)
- Each time the Club is Champion of the Saudi Super Cup: €500,000 (Five hundred thousand
Euros)
- Each time the Club is Champion of the AFC Champions League: €700,000 (seven hundred
thousand Euros)
- Each time the Club is Champion of the King Cup: €500,000 (Five hundred thousand Euros)”
30. As to the Saudi Super Cup bonus the player adduced evidence that the club was the
champion for the Saudi Super Cup as claimed, which moreover was not contested by the
club. Accordingly, the DRC held that the player would be respectively awarded EUR
476,744 as Saudi Super Cup bonus for January 2020 and EUR 500,000 as Saudi Super Cup
bonus for January 2021.
31. With regard to the bonuses in the amount of EUR 450,000 for number of goals scored,
the Chamber first noted that the parties had diametrically different positions regarding
their application. Whereas the player argued that the bonuses were cumulative (i.e. if the
player scored 15 goals or more, he should collect the bonus for 10 goals scored plus the
bonus for 15 goals scored), the club contended that the intention was that the bonuses
Page 23
REF FPSD-4945
were alternative (the player would either get the 10 goal bonus if he scored 10 or more
goals (but less than 15) or the 15 goals bonus if he scored 15 or more goals).
32. The Chamber wishes to first note that it had significant difficulties in coming to a decision
regarding this specific aspect. On the one hand, the literal interpretation of the clause is
not decisive, and, on the other hand, the DRC was not provided with sufficient
background/contextual evidence which would assist in clarifying what the real intention
of the parties was. Therefore, as the mutually agreed real intention of the parties could
not be established, the Chamber decided to take an objective interpretation of the
provision (by seeking, in accordance with the requirements of good faith, to ascertain the
meaning the parties could and should have given to their respective declarations
depending upon the individual circumstances of the case).
33. In this regard, the Chamber considered that it is more likely than not that an objective
third party in the position of the parties would have interpreted the clause as being
alternative (i.e., that the agreement was that the player would either get the 10-goal bonus
or the 15-goal bonus). Among other reasons, this is so because it would appear somewhat
counterintuitive that the player would be rewarded with an amount of €250,000 for
scoring 10 goals, but then almost the double of that amount for scoring only 5 goals more
(€450,000). The Chamber therefore concluded, not without difficulties, that it is more
likely that the agreement was that the clause would operate by thresholds and that as
soon as the player reached the higher goal threshold then only the respective financial
entitlement would apply and no longer those agreed for the lower threshold. In
determining the intent of the parties, or the intent which a reasonable person would have
had in the same circumstances, the Chamber finds this to be the most reasonable and
fair outcome, also taking into account that the burden of proof in establishing cumulative
(as opposed to alternative) approach regarding this particular issue was ultimately not met
by the party invoking such approach, in this case the player.
34. In casu, as the player submitted evidence establishing that he reached the threshold of at
least 15 goals in the SPL in 2019/2020 season, the DRC concluded that he shall be awarded
a bonus in the amount of EUR 450,000.
35. Taking into consideration the player’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 respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
36. 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
Page 24
REF FPSD-4945
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.
37. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it 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 Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract
at the basis of the matter at stake.
38. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of item 9 par. 5 of the contract,
which established that “the Parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that in the event
the Player terminates the Contract without just cause and therefore breaches the contract
before the expiry of its term in accordance with Art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players, the Player shall promptly pay to the Club, as compensation for such
breach the amount of Twenty million Euro (20.000.000) (“Breach Compensation”). The Parties
expressly agree that the Player shall be subject to sporting sanctions in accordance with Article
17 of FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in the event the breach of contracts
takes place within the protected period of the contract.”
39. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that
the employment contract did not contain a provision by means of which the parties had
beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the club to the player
in the event of breach of contract from the club’s side. The Chamber noted that said clause
only applied for the consequences in the event of termination without just cause by the
player.
40. 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.
41. 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
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 3,233,128.06 (i.e., the residual value of the contract December 2021 until 22 August 2022 at EUR 371,211 monthly remuneration x 8 months
plus EUR 263,440.06 (August 2022) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
Page 25
REF FPSD-4945
42. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player 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
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
43. Indeed, the player found employment with the club, Al Ittihad. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR 333.333
per month from 2 January until 30 June 2022 and EUR 300,000 from 1 July 2022 until
30 June 2023 plus a sign-on fee of EUR 400,000. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that
the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 2,912,903.23, that is,
EUR 333,333 times 6 (January 2022 until June 2022); EUR 300, 000 times 1 (July 2022);
EUR 212,903.23 (pro- rata for August 2022) plus EUR 400,000 (sign-on fee).
44. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
was unilaterally terminated by the club and not due to overdue payables, and therefore
decided that the player shall not receive additional compensation.
45. However, the Chamber was of the firm opinion that although the club had terminated the
contract without just cause on 23 November 2021 and is liable to pay the said
compensation to the player, there is sufficient evidence establishing that the player had
also been responsible for certain misconducts in breach of the contract and had,
consequently, also contributed to the deterioration of the relationship between the
parties and therefore to the damages it ultimately sustained. With this in mind, the
Chamber decided that the amount of compensation due to the player and payable by the
club should be further mitigated and therefore the Chamber decided to reduce the
compensation due to the player by ten percent.
46. 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 EUR 288,202.35 to the player (i.e., EUR 3,233,128.06 minus EUR 2,912,903.23 less 10%),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present matter.
47. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 25 January 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
Page 26
REF FPSD-4945
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
48. 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.
49. In this regard, the DRC 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.
50. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
51. 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.
52. The DRC 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
53. 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.
54. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, 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.
55. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 27
REF FPSD-4945
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant /Counter-Respondent, Abderrazzaq Hamed-Allah, is admissible.
2. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Abderrazzaq Hamed-Allah, is partially
accepted.
3. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Al Nassr, is admissible.
4. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Al Nassr, is rejected.
5. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Al Nassr, has to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, the following amount(s):
(a) EUR 1,711,269 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
respective due dates until the date of effective payment:
-
on the amount of EUR 45,517 as from 1 April 2020
on the amount of EUR 181,604 as from 1 May 2020
on the amount of EUR 181,604 as from 1 June 2020
on the amount of EUR 166,293 as from 1 July 2020
on the amount of EUR 371,211 as from 1 September 2021
on the amount of EUR 75,000 as from 1 October 2021
on the amount of EUR 371,211 as from 1 November 2021
on the amount of EUR 318,829 as from 1 December 2021
(b) EUR 288,202.35 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus
5%interest p.a. as from 25 January 2022 until the date of effective payment.
(c) EUR 1,426,744 as bonus plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due dates until the
date of effective payment as follows:
- on the amount of EUR 476,744 as from 4 February 2020
- on the amount of EUR 500,000 as from 2 March 2021
- on the amount of EUR 450,000 as from 30 June 2021
6. Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
7. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
8. 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:
Page 28
REF FPSD-4945
1. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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.
9. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
10. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 29
REF FPSD-4945
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).
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 30