Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5493
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 May 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Pa Omar
Jobe
BY:
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico)
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Pa Omar Jobe, Gambia
Represented by Kasalo & Raic
RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club, Bangladesh
INTERVENING PARTY:
Fk Struga, North Macedonia
Page 2
REF FPSD-5493
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 December 2020, the Gambian player Pa Omar Jobe (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the club from Bangladesh, Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi
Club (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant) concluded an
employment contract valid as from the same date until 31 August 2021 (hereinafter: the
first agreement). Under the first agreement, the player was entitled to USD 3,500 as
monthly salary.
2.
On 7 September 2021, the parties concluded a second employment contract, valid for the
season 2021/2022 (hereinafter: the second agreement).
3.
According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), such
season in Bangladesh would run from 1 October 2021 until 14 August 2022.
4.
Under the second agreement, the player was entitled to a salary of USD 6,000 per month.
Additionally, clause 1.2 of the second agreement stated as follows: “The [club] will pay an
amount of [USD 6,000] only to the [player] as one month advance salary which will be adjusted
on equal instalment from the salary of the [player]”.
5.
The player was also entitled to the following benefits: (i) free accommodation and food;
(ii) one round trip plane ticket between Dhaka and Gambia per year.
6.
On 15 January 2022, the player and the North-Macedonian club, FK Struga (hereinafter:
FK Struga or the intervening party), signed an employment agreement valid for six months,
for a monthly salary MKD 15,600 (approx. USD 285).
7.
On 20 January 2022, FK Struga started a transfer instruction in TMS to engage the player
permanently as “out of contract”. The Football Federation of North Macedonia (FFM)
accordingly requested the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) on the same
date.
8.
On 26 January 2022, the Bangladesh Football Federation (BFF) rejected the ITC issuance
on the grounds that the player was still under contract with its affiliated club, i.e. the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, and filed solely a copy of the second agreement in
support of its position. Subsequently, the FFM requested the intervention of FIFA.
9.
On 9 February 2022, the player put the club in default and indicated that the club had
failed (i) to pay him his advance payment and salaries up to that date, (ii) to invite him to
the club’s premises after the expiry of the first agreement, (iii) to provide him with plane
tickets for this purpose, and (iv) to secure him a visa to enter Bangladesh. Accordingly, the
player stated that he “de facto unilaterally terminated [the contract] with just cause amid
above described heavy breaches of the [contract] without just cause committed by the [club]”
Page 3
REF FPSD-5493
and indicated he signed a new contract on 15 January 2022 with FK Struga from North
Macedonia. The player asked the club to pay him (i) USD 32,709.67 as outstanding
remuneration, regarding his advance payment and salaries until December 2021 and prorata salary of January 2022, and (ii) compensation for breach of contract amounting to
USD 52,959.33.
10. On 3 March 2022, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber (PSC) authorized the
provisional registration of the player with FK Struga. The decision remarked that “The
present decision is a provisional measure, and, as such, without prejudice to any possible
decision from the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and/or the competent decisionmaking body on the substance of the potential or existing contractual dispute between the
player and former club (as well as new club).” The player highlighted that the club “did not
take any concrete measures to secure the arrival of the Player to Bangladesh in order to
provide his services and did not pay him his remuneration for 5 months, and thus the
Respondent acted contrary to its duty as an employer and clearly expressed that the Claimant’s
services were no longer required by it”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 16 March 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. The player argued that the club severely breached the second agreement and he is of the
position that “The Respondent’s general conduct towards the Claimant during the term of the
[contract], legitimely (sic) led the Claimant to believe that the Respondent de facto decided to
unilaterally terminate the [contract] without just cause”.
13. The player furthermore argued that his decision to “walk away” from the club and sign a
new contract without any notice sent to the club was a result of its “creation of an
unfavourable working environment, meaning that it can be easily concluded that it is the
Respondent which terminated the [contract] without just cause”.
14. The player requested the following amounts:
“USD 85,669.00 (eighty-five thousand, six hundred and sixty-nine US dollars), broken down
as follows:
a) outstanding remuneration of net USD 32,709.67 (thirty-two thousand, seven hundred and
nine US dollars, sixty-seven cents), broken down as follows:
- advance payment of net USD 6,000.00, which matured on 7/9/2021, and
- September 2021 salary of net USD 6,000.00 which matured on 1/10/2021,
Page 4
REF FPSD-5493
-
and
October 2021 salary of USD net USD 6,000.00 which matured on 1/11/2021,
and
November 2021 salary of net USD 6,000.00 which matured on 1/12/2021,
and
December 2021 salary of net USD 6,000.00 which matured on 1/1/2022, and
“pro rata” salary for the period from 1/1/2022 until 14/1/2022 of net USD
2,709.67, which matured on 1/2/2022; and
b) compensation for breach of the 2nd Employment contract in the amount of net USD
52,959.33 (fifty-two thousand, nine hundred fifty-nine US dollars, thirty-three cents) as a
residual value of the salaries in accordance with the 2nd Employment contract in the period
from 15/1/2022 until 30/9/2022, and the residual value of the unpaid airplane tickets of net
USD 1,669.07, all in the sense of the art. 17. of FIFA RSTP);
all above along with pertinent default interest, all relevant taxes and contributions on top of
all above specified net amounts.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the club
15. The club filed its reply and a counterclaim against the player.
16. The club, affirmed having paid the advance salary of USD 6,000, together with other
concepts. It filed a money receipt in support of this allegation, as follows:
“Money Receipt
Received with thanks the following amount for playing for Lt. Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club
Limited for the Football Season 2021-2022. Details are as under:
Sl.
#
01.
02.
03.
Purpose
Amount
Salary of the month of August, 2021
US$
3,500
Cost of return Air-ticket for Dhaka to Gambia as per Agreement Clause US$
No. 1.3
1,500
1 (One) month advance salary as per Agreement Clause No. 1.2 signed US$
on 7th [handwritten] ‘Sep’ 2021 for the Football Season 2021-2022
6,000
Total = US$
11,000
17. The club also argued that the player faced issues with his passport and was requested by
the club to provide them with a copy, to no avail. The club argued that the player has now
a new passport as per his statement of claim, and filed a copy of his old passport.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5493
18. The club stated that the player failed to cooperate with obtaining his visa, which in its
opinion amounts to an abusive conduct, and therefore argued that it “was forced to
terminate the contract with just cause”.
19. The club also argued that it was via the claim that they learned for the first time that the
player had signed a contract with FK Struga.
20. The club argued that it suffered damages since it paid part of the player’s remuneration,
but that he never rendered services to the club.
21. As such, it requested USD 72,000 as compensation for breach of contract and the
reimbursement of the advance salary paid. The club did not request interest.
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the player
22. The player highlighted that the club admitted having terminated the second agreement,
but contended that it had just cause to do so.
23. The player also argued that the club’s position that he was uncooperative was not
substantiated by evidence. He submitted that the club never put him in default with
regards to the alleged breach of his cooperation duties.
24. As to the receipt of the advance payment, the player denied having signed it and argued
that it was forged. He pointed out that the signature found therein is different form his
own – even for a layman.
25. The player subsequently added that the club did not have just cause to terminate the
second agreement on the following grounds, and that in any event the termination was
not an ultima ratio measure:
“- the Club did not take any concrete measures to secure the arrival of the Player to
Bangladesh in order to provide his services, and
- the Club did not try to contact him as from the September 2021, and
- the Club did not pay him his remuneration for 5 months;”
26. The player requested that the club’s counterclaim be dismissed. Alternatively, should it
be found that the club had just cause to terminate the second agreement, the player
asked that no compensation is awarded to the club and that no sporting sanctions be
imposed on him.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5493
d. Position of FK Struga
27. On 13 April 2022, the FIFA General Secretariat invited FK Struga to intervene as a party in
these proceedings on the basis of art. 9 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules Governing the
Football Tribunal.
28. FK Struga provided its position and started by arguing that it cannot be a party to the
proceedings since there is no counterclaim filed against it, entailing it lacked standing to
be sued.
29. As to the substance, FK Sruga argued as follows:
“Having in mind the aforementioned statement of the Counter-Claimant, it is evident that
the Counter Claimant acknowledged having terminated the subject contract with the Player
before he signed with the Club and therefore, [FK Struga] shall emphasize that article 17
para. 2 and 4 of FIFA RSTP cannot be applicable in any case, even if the honorable chamber
would somehow find that the Club should be regarded as a party in these proceedings.
Nevertheless and for the sake of completeness, [FK Struga] shall state that it did not induce
the Player to breach his employment contract with his former employer nor was it aware at
the time that any problem between the Player and Counter-Claimant existed nor [FK Struga]
produced any evidence on file in this regard.
In fact, [FK Struga] has learned that problem existed between the Player and the CounterClaimant only once the ITC for the Player was rejected by Bangladesh FA, but of course, since
it had already signed an employment contract with the Player, decided to ask for provisional
registration of the Player in order not to breach the terms and conditions of contract that it
signed with the Player.
As for the remaining allegations made by the Counter-Claimant in relation to the merits of
the case at hand, [FC Struga] shall state that the said allegations are uncorroborated by any
relevant documentation and other evidence and as such have to be entirely rejected”.
30. FK Struga filed the following request for relief:
“ln view of the foregoing, the honorable chamber is respectfully requested to reject all
soughts by the Counter-Claimant in this case and rule:
that FK Struga is not a party and cannot be a party to this procedure;
that, in any case, FK Struga is not to be held jointly and severally liable to pay any
compensation that might be payable by the player Pa Omar Jobe to Sheikh Jamal
Dhanmondi Club and that no sporting sanctions could be imposed on FK Struga”.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5493
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
31. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 16 March
2022 and submitted for decision on 18 May 2022. Taking into account the wording of art.
34 of the October 2021 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.
32. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (March 2022
edition), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Gambian player
and a club from Bangladesh, with the involvement of a North-Macedonian club. In this
respect, the Single Judge outlined that he took note of FK Struga’s allegations regarding
its standing in these proceedings, but he confirmed that such matter pertains to the
substance of the case and not its admissibility – and such it will be dealt with accordingly.
33. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 March 2022, the aforementioned
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
34. 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, he stressed the
wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by
or within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
35. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, he started by acknowledging all the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However,
Page 8
REF FPSD-5493
he emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
36. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and acknowledged that his task was to make a determination on the following:
a. Does FK Struga have standing to be sued?
b. When was the second agreement terminated?
c. Did the club have just cause to terminate the second agreement?
d. What are the consequences that follow from the above?
37. The Single Judge examined these matters in turn.
Does FK Struga have standing to be sued?
38. The Single Judge observed that FK Struga claimed that it should not be included as a party
in these proceedings because neither of the counterparties lodged any claim against it.
39. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled the well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC) according to which the joint and several liability of the
professional player and their new club is automatic as it derives from art. 17, par. 4 of the
Regulations.
40. Based on the above, whenever the player signs a new employment contract, a
presumption is created that the new club must be involved in a matter (whether ex officio
or upon request). As such, the fact that the club did not specifically address any claim
against FK Struga does not object its standing to be sued in this case. Equally, it does not
interfere in a (potential) finding against FK Struga a violation of the legal principle of ne
ultra petita.
41. Along these lines, the Single Judge highlighted that art. 9 Par. 4 of the Procedural Rules
expressly state that ”The FIFA general secretariat may, at any stage of a procedure, request
the intervention of any natural or legal person as a party in a procedure”, exactly as it was
done in the matter at hand.
42. As a consequence, the Single Judge decided that FK Struga shall be considered as a party
to the case at stake and its allegations on the issue of standing cannot be upheld.
Page 9
REF FPSD-5493
When was the second agreement terminated?
43. In continuation, the Single Judge turned to the matter of the termination of the parties’
employment relationship, given that they had advanced dissenting positions in this
regard. Nonetheless, the Single Judge did not fail to notice that the club confessed in its
reply and counterclaim to have terminated the second agreement; however, no specific
date was informed.
44. At the same time, the Single Judge recalled that on 26 January 2022, the BFF objected to
the issuance of the player’s ITC, but solely provided a copy of the second agreement. It
did not provide any statement by the club asking the player to return, or any document
demonstrating that it wished to retain his services. Therefore, the Single Judge
determined that such conduct amounts to a demonstration of the club’s lack of interest
in the player’s services and that, accordingly, considered that the second agreement was
terminated on such date, as confessed by the club.
Did the club have just cause to terminate the second agreement?
45. Having found that the club terminated the second agreement on 26 January 2022, the
Single Judge proceeded to assess the issue of the whether it had just case to do so.
46. In this scenario, the Single Judge recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to
which only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination
of a contract without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria
which do not reasonably permit to expect the 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 assure
the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only be an ultima ratio.
47. Against this background, the Single Judge recalled that the club argued to have terminated
the second agreement with just cause because of the player’s alleged lack of cooperation
regarding the issue of his visa. At the same time, the Single Judge noted that the club has
filed a copy of the player’s old passport, which denotes that it was in possession of the
player’s documentation, conversely to his own argumentation.
48. In other words, the Single Judge deemed that the evidence on file contradicted the club's
own position that the player never provided it with his passport. Aside from this, he
highlighted that there is no further evidence regarding the club’s undertakings as to the
issuance of a visa to the player, and there is no default notice summoning the player to
be cooperative.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5493
49. On the basis of the above, the Single Judge recalled that, as per the longstanding
jurisprudence of the DRC, administrative issues like the issuance of a visa are
responsibility of the club, and that the player must cooperate. In doing so, he once again
outlined that on file, however, there is no evidence that the player failed to be cooperative
in that regard.
50. On the basis of the foregoing, the Single Judge was comfortable to determine that the
club did not have just cause to terminate the second agreement and should bear the
consequences that follow.
What are the consequences that follow?
51. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club. In principle,
the Single Judge confirmed that the player should be entitled to outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
52. Nonetheless, before assessing the quantum due to the player, the Single Judge proceeded
to examine the issue of the salary receipt filed by the club.
53. In this context, the Single Judge observed that the club argues that it paid the advance
salary to the player and provided a receipt to this end, which has been challenged by the
player on the grounds that the signatures do not match – he deems that these monies
were never paid.
54. From the evidence on file, the Single Judge considered that the following signatures are
available:
Payment receipt:
Player’s passport:
Page 11
REF FPSD-5493
Power of attorney:
Bank account registration form:
55. On the basis of the above, the Single Judge found that the player seems to have used
different signatures at different times, and thus was not comforted that the signature on
the receipt matches the player’s own. To this end, he remarked that clubs have to be
diligent when paying players in cash and should record the correspondent cash payment
receipt. In the absence of a clear confirmation that the signature found in the specimen
in the receipt is authentic, it fell on the club to further prove its position – for instance by
filing additional documentation, such as balances or internal accounting documents, to
demonstrate that payment was performed.
56. Additionally, the Single Judge noted that the second agreement stated that the advanced
payment amounted to USD 6,000, but the receipt indicates a breakdown of 3 concepts,
namely Salary of August 2021 for USD 3,500, and cost return of air ticket for USD 1,500.
57. Considering the foregoing, the Single Judge decided that the club failed to meet its burden
of proof regarding the payments made to the player, and that as such the receipt should
be set aside.
58. Subsequently, the Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time
of termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent
to 5 salaries under the second agreement, amounting to USD 30,000 (i.e. USD 6,000 each).
59. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Single Judge decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts
which were outstanding under the second agreement at the moment of the termination,
i.e. USD 30,000.
60. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the DRC in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the player interest at the rate
Page 12
REF FPSD-5493
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from their due dates until the date of effective
payment.
61. Having stated the above, the Single Judge 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 Single
Judge firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
62. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means
of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable
by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single
Judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment
contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
63. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge recalled that said provision
provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
64. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of
the second agreement from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of USD 46,669 (i.e. the residual
value of the second agreement from 1 January to 14 August 2022) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
65. Equally, the Single Judge decided to include in this calculation USD 1,669 as flight tickets,
as it (a) possesses a contractual basis, and (b) this remained unchallenged by the club. On
this note, the Single Judge confirmed that the amount of the flight ticket was in fact higher
than the one claimed by the player, but in light of the principle ne ultra petita said figure
was considered for the purposes of the calculation.
66. In continuation, the Single Judge 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
Page 13
REF FPSD-5493
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.
67. Indeed, the player found employment with FK Struga. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately USD 285 per month.
Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of USD 1,170, that is, 6 times USD 285.
68. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge confirmed that the
termination of the relevant contract did not happen because of overdue payables, and
therefore decided that the player shall not receive additional compensation.
69. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay the
amount of USD 44,959 to the player (i.e. USD 46,669 minus USD 1,710), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
70. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the DRC in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim until the date of effective
payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
71. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
72. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5493
73. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the player, 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 club in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
74. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
75. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and
prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art.
24 par. 8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. Lastly, the Single Judge rejected any other requests for relief made by any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5493
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Pa Omar Jobe, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club, is
rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the
following amount(s):
a. USD 6,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8
September 2021 until the date of effective payment;
b. USD 6,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October
2021 until the date of effective payment;
c. USD 6,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
November 2021 until the date of effective payment;
d. USD 6,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
December 2021 until the date of effective payment;
e. USD 6,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2022 until the date of effective payment;
f.
USD 44,959 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 16 March 2022 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 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 art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this
decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1.
2.
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.
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.
Page 16
REF FPSD-5493
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17
REF FPSD-5493
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 18