Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2323
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Christian Osaguona Ighodaro
COMPOSITION:
Clifford HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairman
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands)
Pavel PIVOVAROV (Russia), member
CLAIMANT:
Christian Osaguona Ighodaro, Nigeria
RESPONDENT:
Persepolis FC, Iran
Page 2
REF FPSD-2323
I.
Facts
1.
On 13 January 2020, the parties concluded an employment contract, valid as from the date of
signature until 31 May 2020 or, “in any case”, “after the last match of Iran Pro League”.
2.
Art. 7 of the contract stipulated the following:
The total amount of tile contract for the second half season 2019 -2020 will be USD 150,000 net
(…) which will be paid by the club to the player as below:
Signing fee: USD 25,000
31 Jan 2020: USD 25,000
29 Feb 2020: USD 25,000
31 Mar 2020: USD 25,000
30 Apr 2020: USD 25,000
31 May 2020: USD 25,000
3.
Art. 8-1 of the contract stipulated the following:
“In case of any dispute between both parties, the issue will be taken to IR Football Federation
and only decision of Iran football Federation and it’s [sic] disciplinary committee is valid
8-3. lf a party is not satisfied with tt1e decision of Iran Football Federation, the issue will be
taken to FIFA in first instance and to CAS in appeal.”
4.
The contract included the player’s signature, as follows:
5.
According to the Respondent, on 8 September 2020, the parties concluded an agreement with
the following contents:
“Both parties agreed that according to contract 98P3112 dated on 17 January 2020, with the
reception of amount of 70,000 USD, the player will give his consent regarding all his salaries
and rights based on the contract and give up his rights about other claims and thus consider
the above-mentioned contract as cleared up which is supposed to be paid with the terms below:
• 10,000 USD shall be paid by club in cash to the player on September 8th 2020
• 60,000 USD shall be paid by club to the player December 8th 2020 according to account
number later on emailed to club by player
3- Player confirms and confesses his unconditional consent and waivers all his contractual rights
and demands from the club, including the contract salaries and remuneration and therefore
the above-mentioned employment contract and any other alleged cases in relation to the said
employment contract, are considered to be settled and paid as a whole”
6.
On 20 August 2020, the Iran Pro League was terminated due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
7.
On 6 December 2020 and 22 December 2020, the Claimant sent a default notice requesting the
payment of “a net sum amounting to USD 106,172” within 12 days.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2323
8.
On 19 April 2021, the Claimant lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration and requested the
payment of an outstanding amount of USD 106,072, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 August
2020.
9.
According to the player, he should have received the following amounts:
- USD 150,000 as remuneration in accordance with art. 7 of the contract;
- USD 1,000 as assist made (match opposing ESTEGHLAL FC and PERSEPOLIS FC in Persian Gulf
Pro League on 6 February 2020)
10.
The Claimant explained that, during the period of validity of the contract, he received, “in a
chaotic manner”, the following amounts:
USD 17,900 dated February 2, 2020 (Exhibit 10)
USD 10,000 dated 16 March 2020 (Exhibit 11)
USD 30,000 dated 5 July 2020 (but actually 5 August 2020) (Exhibit 12)
USD 10,000 dated 8 September 2020 (Exhibit 13)
11.
In it reply, the club argued that clause 8-2 of the contract stipulated the competence of the
Football Federation of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the settlement of disputes.
12.
According to the Respondent, from the agreed amount (USD 70,000), the amount of USD 10,000
dollars was paid by the club to the player on September 8, 2020.
13.
As a result, the Respondent agreed to pay the remaining amount (USD 60,000) to the player.
14.
The Respondent further underlined that the player did not mention the termination agreement
in his claim.
15.
The Respondent further stated that “the meaning of Force Major in current case is the cruel
sanctions against Iran, imposed by the political decisions of a foreign country, which is
practically included even in sports and football.”
16.
In his replica, the Claimant denied that it “ever had an original copy” of the contract of 8
September 2020.
17.
Nevertheless, the Claimant argued that he “does not dispute his signature on page 2 of the
Termination Agreement nor his fingerprint and acknowledges having effectively received "in
cash" an amount of $10,000”
18.
However, the Claimant argues that he was “pressured by PERSEPOLIS FC to sign an
administrative document (to be submitted to the Iranian Football Federation in exchange for
the surrender of his passport) without drawing attention to the content of the Termination
Agreement.”
19.
As to the competence, the player considered that the Respondent made a very vague reference
to the Iranian Decision-making bodies, and that it failed to prove that it was compliant with
Circular nº1010 as well as with the Regulations.
20.
Moreover, the player argued that if the claim is based on the document of 8 September 2020,
said contract does not contain a competence clause.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2323
21.
The player insisted to be paid the amount of USD 106,072, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26
August 2020 or, in a subsidiary manner, the amount of USD 60,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from
9 December 2020.
22.
As to the sanctions imposed against Iran, the Claimant considered that, following the statutes
of FIFA, political interference is prohibited.
23.
As final comments, the Respondent insisted in his previous position.
24.
In particular, the Respondent rejected the competence of FIFA, as it considered that “the
Football Federation of the Islamic Republic of Iran is competent to resolve the present dispute”.
25.
The club further stated that it is “ready to pay the amount of USD 60,000 to the player, but due
to the sanctions imposed against Iran, up to this date it was possible to transfer this amount
from Iran to any other accounts out of Iran”
26.
Nevertheless, the Respondent explained “its readiness to pay its debt to the player from the
Persepolis Prize Money which is currently held by the Asian Football Confederation.”
Page 5
REF FPSD-2323
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.
3. However, in this regard, the Chamber noted that the Respondent contested the
competence of FIFA on the basis of art. 8.1 of the contract.
4. On the other hand, the Chamber took note that the Claimant insisted in the competence
of FIFA.
5. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant stipulated the following:
“In case of any dispute between both parties, the issue will be taken to IR Football
Federation and only decision of Iran football Federation and it’s [sic] disciplinary
committee is valid
8-3. lf a party is not satisfied with the decision of Iran Football Federation, the issue will
be taken to FIFA in first instance and to CAS in appeal.”
6. After duly examining the contents of the aforemention clause, the Chamber noted that,
in fact, art. 8.3 of the contract specifically referred to FIFA as the competent body in first
instance.
7. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection
towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and
that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to
the substance.
8. 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 2021 edition of the
aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand.
Page 6
REF FPSD-2323
9. 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.
10. In this respect, the Chamber noted that on 13 January 2020, the parties concluded an
employment contract, valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020 or, “in any
case”, “after the last match of Iran Pro League”.
11. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that, on 8 September 2020, the parties concluded a
settlement agreement.
12. Thereafter, the Chamber took note that the Claimant lodged a claim for outstanding
remuneration and requested the payment of an outstanding amount of USD 106,072,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 August 2020.
13. On the other hand, the Chamber observed that the Respondent did not mention the
settlement agreement in his claim. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, from the
agreed settlement amount (USD 70,000), the amount of USD 10,000 dollars was paid by
the club to the player on September 8, 2020. As a result, the Respondent acknowledged
a debt in the amount of USD 60,000 to the player.
14. In view of the dissent between the parties, the Chamber understood that the main legal
issue at stake is to determine the legal basis of the player’s request, i.e. the original
contract of 13 January 2020 or the settlement agreement of 8 September 2020.
15. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the contents of the settlement agreement, which
stipulated the following:
“Both parties agreed that according to contract 98P3112 dated on 17 January 2020, with
the reception of amount of 70,000 USD, the player will give his consent regarding all his
salaries and rights based on the contract and give up his rights about other claims and
thus consider the above-mentioned contract as cleared up which is supposed to be paid
with the terms below:
• 10,000 USD shall be paid by club in cash to the player on September 8th 2020
• 60,000 USD shall be paid by club to the player December 8th 2020 according to account
number later on emailed to club by player
3- Player confirms and confesses his unconditional consent and waivers all his contractual
rights and demands from the club, including the contract salaries and remuneration and
therefore the above-mentioned employment contract and any other alleged cases in
relation to the said employment contract, are considered to be settled and paid as a
whole”
16. After duly examining the contents of the settlement agreement, the Chamber considered
that its validity was subject to the payment of USD 10,000 on 8 September 2020, as well
as USD 60,000 on 8 December 2020. Thus, considering that the club did not fulfill said
conditions, the entire settlement agreement shall be deemed as invalid.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2323
17. In view of the above, the Chamber analyzed the player’s entitlements as per the contract.
18. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, according to the player, he should have
received the following amounts:
- USD 150,000 as remuneration in accordance with art. 7 of the contract;
- USD 1,000 as assist made (match opposing ESTEGHLAL FC and PERSEPOLIS FC in
Persian Gulf Pro League on 6 February 2020)
19. The Claimant explained that, during the period of validity of the contract, he received,
“in a chaotic manner”, the following amounts:
USD 17,900 dated February 2, 2020
USD 10,000 dated 16 March 2020
USD 30,000 dated 5 July 2020 (but actually 5 August 2020)
USD 10,000 dated 8 September 2020
20. As a result, the Claimant estimated that he is entitled to USD 106,072.
21. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the club did not dispute that it did not paid the player
as per the contract, except for the amount of USD 10,000 that was paid on 8 September
2020.
22. Consequently, taking into account the player’s remuneration and the player’s claim, the
Chamber established that the total debt of the club to the player corresponds to USD
96,072, i.e. USD 106,072-USD 10,000.
23. 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 96,072, as agreed in the contract.
24. Moreover, taking into account the request of the Claimant as well as the longstanding
jurisprudence in this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to award 5%
interest p.a. over said amount as from 9 December 2020.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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
Page 8
REF FPSD-2323
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.
28. 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 9
REF FPSD-2323
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Christian Osaguona Ighodaro, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Persepolis FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the amount of USD 96,072 as
outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 December 2020 until the date
of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to article 24 bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not paid 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 the ban
shall be of 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 paid by the end of the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in
accordance with article 24 bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 10
REF FPSD-2323
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 11