Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17031
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Almahdi
K.A. Issa
BY:
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar)
CLAIMANT:
Almahdi K.A. Issa, Palestine
Represented by Muah Tashani
RESPONDENT:
Al Borouq, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17031
I. Parties
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
-
the Palestinian player Almahdi K.A. Issa (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
-
the Libyan club Al Borouq (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to the
Libyan Football Federation (LFF).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
2.
On 11 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
3.
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
4.
The Claimant alleged that on 25 February 2024, the Claimant and the Respondent
concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the Contract), valid as from the date of
signature until the end of the 2023/24 season.
5.
In support of his position, the Claimant submitted a copy of the Contract bearing the
signature of the Claimant only, but not of the Respondent. The Claimant claimed that the
Respondent refused to give the Claimant a copy of the Contract signed by both parties.
6.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant:
“In the employment contract, the parties agreed that the player's remuneration would be $9,000
(nine thousand USD) and a bonus of $3,500 (three thousand five hundred USD) for promotion
to the Premier League. This amount will be paid as a signing-on fee of $4,500, with the remaining
$4,500 to be paid in installments until the end of the contract.”
7.
The Claimant asserted that he did not receive the amounts of USD 1,000 corresponding to
his salaries for August and September 2024, nor the USD 3,500 allegedly due as a
promotion bonus.
8.
The Claimant argued that, on 20 October 2024, he put the Respondent in default for the
total alleged outstanding amount of USD 4,500, granting 15-day deadline to fulfil its
financial obligations.
9.
The Claimant’s requests for relief, were the following:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17031
“8. We kindly request to:
9. To require the Respondent to pay $4,500 as outstanding payments, including $1,000 for
salaries from August and September, and $3,500 for promotion to the Premier League.
10. The Respondent is required to pay $2,000 in legal fees.
11. To impose on the player any sporting sanction the DRC deems necessary.
12. To impose and/or any other relief the DRC deems appropriate.”
b. Position of the Respondent
10. Despite of being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17031
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
11. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 11 November 2024 and
submitted for decision on 19 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and
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.
12. 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 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 a Palestinian player and a Libyan club.
13. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
14. 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 she 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
15. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17031
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
16. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the Claimant alleged the Respondent breached the Contract.
17. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine whether a
contractual relationship existed between the parties wherein the Respondent undertook
to pay the Claimant remuneration, and whether the Respondent breached such contract.
18. Because the Single Judge observed the Respondent did not reply to the claim, she based
her analysis on the evidence submitted by the Claimant (cf. art. 21, par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules).
19. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant could not produce
a fully executed version of the Contract allegedly signed between the parties.
20. Additionally, the Single Judge wished to point out that, according to the information
retrieved from TMS, the Claimant was only registered with the Respondent on 4 February
2025. In this context, the Single Judge observed that the TMS reflected a contractual
relationship between parties starting on 25 January 2025 and valid until 31 August 2025.
Moreover, the Single Judge noted that no contract was uploaded to TMS relating to the
2023/24 sporting season, as alleged by the Claimant.
21. Furthermore, the Single Judge reviewed the evidence presented by the Claimant which
included photos of the Claimant, a Facebook post allegedly made by the Respondent and
a WhatsApp conversation allegedly concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent’s
President.
22. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the photos, social media post, and WhatsApp
conversation submitted by the Claimant did not constitute sufficient evidence of a
contractual relationship between the parties highlighting that the photos lacked context,
the Facebook post could not be considered sufficient proof of legally binding obligations,
and the authorship of the WhatsApp messages remained unproven.
23. Therefore, the Single Judge was not convinced that the evidence submitted by the Claimant
presented sufficient proof that an agreement for the Respondent to pay USD 9,000 plus
USD 3,500 promotion bonus was concluded between the parties.
24. Taking the above into account and referring to 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, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant did not meet his
burden of proof in support of his claims and arguments and, therefore, the claim should
be rejected in its entirety.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17031
d. Costs
25. The Single 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.
26. 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.
27. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17031
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Almahdi K.A. Issa, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17031
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 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. 9