Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14070
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 June 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Kofi Kordzi
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), member
Laurel VAURASI (Fiji), member
CLAIMANT:
Kofi Kordzi, Ghana
Represented by Mawuli Kwaku Avorgah
RESPONDENT:
Al-Tahaddy Benghazi, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14070
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 28 September 2023, the player Kofi Kordzi from Ghana (hereinafter: Claimant or Player) and
the club Al-Tahaddy Benghazi from Lybia (hereinafter: Respondent or Club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: Contract) valid until “the end of season 2023-2024”.
2.
The specimen of the Contract presented by the Player in these proceedings was obtained after
contacting the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS) Helpdesk, as the Club allegedly failed to
provide him with a copy. Said specimen is not signed by the Club, but it was not disputed by
the parties.
3.
According to clause 3 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the total
amount of USD 45,000, payable as follows:
•
•
•
4.
USD 15,000 “advanced after the medical checkup and receiving the International
clearance”
USD 15,000 “In the middle of the season 2023-2024”.
USD 15,000 “in the end of the season 2023-2024”.
According to the information retrieved from TMS:
a. the 2023/2024 season in Libya started on 1 October 2023 and ends on 1 July 2024,
therefore the mid-season was on 15 January 2024.
b. On 28 September 2023, the Club entered a transfer instruction to register the
Player as “Engage permanently (out of contract)” an uploaded a copy of the
Contract in the relevant transfer instruction (TMS 756053). The player was
ultimately registered with the CLUB on 24 October 2023 without any distinctive
issues.
5.
On 3 October 2023, the Player was paid USD 15,000 by the Club as expressly recognized by him.
This amount is not in dispute, and a receipt of this amount is found on file.
6.
On 27 December 2023, the parties allegedly entered into a termination agreement (hereinafter:
Termination Agreement). The Player disputes that this document was signed by him, and states
the signature found in such document was forged.
7.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Termination Agreement read as follows:
“2. By the will and desire of both parties, without any pressure or coercion, the two parties agreed
to terminate the contract concluded with them by mutual consent.
3. The two parties release each other from the legal consequences resulting from termination of
the contract in a comprehensive manner without exception.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14070
8.
On 3 January 2024, the Club allegedly procured air tickets for the Player, with the following
itinerary: Benghazi, Libya to Accra, Ghana via Cairo, Egypt, departing on 5 January 2024.
9.
On the same date, the Club issued a document titled “Player Clearance”, which reads as follows.
The document possesses a specific area for both parties to sign, yet only a signature and stamp
on behalf of the Club are found therein.
“To Whom It May Concern.
We the ALTAHDAI SPORTING CLUB, do hereby given clearance to the following player to play for
any club of their choice.
Name: KORDIZ KOFI
Passport: (…)
Nationality: Ghanian
Birth date: 02-01-1995
We also inform you that there are no restrictions or financial demands between the club and the
athlete.”
10. On 5 January 2024, the Player left Libya on the aforementioned flight, as confirmed by the
parties in the proceedings.
11. On 28 January 2024, the Claimant contacted FIFA TMS Helpdesk and requested a copy of the
contract, which was provided to him as described above.
12. The Player remained unemployed following this departure from Libya as confirmed by him and
indicated in TMS.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 15 March 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
14. In his claim, which did not mention the Termination Agreement, the Player explained as follows
as to the facts of the dispute:
“On 3 January 2024, the Club wanted to terminate the contract of the professional player with a
document entitled ‘‘PLAYER CLEARANCE’’ in the absence of a just cause (…)
The player disagreed with the Club on the early termination of his Contract and wanted the club
to pay him his money before he can sign the document entitled PLAYER CLEARANCE.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14070
Following the player’s refusal to terminate his contract, on 5 January 2024, the club decided to
send the player home by Egypt Air, from Libya back to Ghana, the Player’s country.
On 28 January 2024, the Player sent a letter to the club to request a copy of his contract, the copy
that bears the signatures of both parties. The club didn’t reply, meanwhile the club had promised
to the player to give him a contract copy after the Libyan Football Federation had put a stamp on
the contract signed by both parties.
On 31 January 2024, the player sent a letter to FIFA requesting a copy of the contract bearing the
Player’s signature and the Club signature. It came out that the Libyan club intentionally uploaded
on FIFA TMS a contract that bears only the signature of the player. This behavior should be
categorized as bad faith, unethical and against the spirit of football.”
15. The DRC underlined that no copy of the alleged notice from the Player to the Club dated 28
January 2024 was made available in these proceedings.
16. Additionally, the Player filed the following submissions as to the substance of the dispute:
“With regard to compliance with contracts between clubs and Players, FIFA provides in Article 13
of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players that "A contract between a professional
player and a club may only end on its due date or by mutual agreement" and in article 16 of the
same regulations that "A contract cannot be terminated unilaterally during a period of
competition".
As a consequence of any breach of contract without just cause, FIFA’s provisions are explicit in
article 17 which emphasizes that in all cases of breach of contract, the party having breached the
contract is obliged to pay compensation to the other party.
Knowing that in the present case, the unilateral breach of the player’s contract is without just
cause and was initiated by the club, it is therefore necessary to conclude that the club being the
party having breached the contract is therefore liable to pay compensation to the player.”
17. The Player filed the following request for relief:
“The contract in question, which is for a period of from 28/09/2023 and ends on 15/07/2024, has
a value of 45’000 USD payable into three installments. The Club has paid only 15’000 USD and
therefore owes the Player USD 30’000.
On one hand, the Player is claiming before FIFA the payment of USD 30’000 as
outstanding/remaining money of his contract, that’s is USD 15’000 x 2 installments and on the
other hand, the player is claiming USD 10’000 for damages following the early termination of his
contract plus 5% interest per annum starting from 05/01/2024.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14070
THE PLAYER IS CLAIMING BEFORE FIFA THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF USD 40’000 FORTY THOUSAND AS
COMPENSATION PLUS 5% INTEREST PER ANNUM STARTING FROM 05/01/2024”.
b. Position of the Respondent
18. In its reply, the Respondent raised the following arguments:
•
The Player provided a biased and inaccurate account of the facts, omitting relevant and
important elements, which prevents a fair and comprehensive evaluation. In fact, the Club
claimed it fulfilled its contractual obligations, including payments to the Player.
•
The Player was the one who requested to leave the Club due to adaptation issues and
incidents in the city of Benghazi. After his insistence, the club agreed to the Player’s request
to leave. What is more, the Club argued that the Player’s representative’s statements are
contradictory, as he never sent any notice of default for non-payment or to contest the
termination of the contract.
•
The Club also denies any wrongdoing in that it provided the Player with a signed copy of the
Contract and uploaded it to TMS, fulfilling its commitment to the Player.
•
The player contests the Termination Agreement, but at the time of signing, he had been paid
for all work done under the contract. In fact, the contested document is a standard form of
the Libyan Football Federation.
•
The Club refers to Swiss law, specifically Article 341 Paragraph 1 of the Swiss Code of
Obligations, and states that the Player could have challenged the Termination Agreement
within a month of the termination but did not do so, and he cannot do it now.
19. In support of its position as to the Termination Agreement, the club filed the following
document, in addition to a link to a video, which however could not be opened by the FIFA
general secretariat.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14070
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
20. In its rejoinder, the Claimant raised the following arguments:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14070
•
The Club ignored the Player’s request for a copy of the Contract bearing the signatures of
both parties, which he sees as abnormal. What is more, the Player contends that the Club’s
refusal to provide a signed copy of the Contract is evidence of bad faith and a premeditated
plan to not respect the contractual arrangements.
•
The Club’s claim that the Player signed the Termination Agreement document without
pressure or coercion is disputed by the Player and is considered false. The Player asserts
that the Club presented a document for contract termination on 3 January 2024, namely the
“Player Clearance” document, which the Player refused to sign, contradicting the Club’s claim
that the player voluntarily sought to leave the Club. He insisted he never signed the
Termination Agreement.
•
The video filed by the Club shows the Player signing documents at the request of the Libyan
Football Federation for club subsidies and not a contract termination. In the Player’s view,
his WhatsApp conversation with his representative and the absence of a signed termination
document prove that the club’s claim is false.
21. In support of his position and in the body of his submission, the Player filed a series of
WhatsApp screenshots of multiple conversations with allegedly various individuals.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
22. On 30 April 2024, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Respondent to file its final comments,
as well as remit via courier to FIFA the original specimen of the Termination Agreement.
23. The Respondent timely complied with the aforementioned instructions.
24. In its final submission, the Respondent reiterated its position and highlighted the following:
•
The Player’s representative did not act in good faith and was aware of the procedures for
obtaining a signed contract.
•
The Player was given the clearance document to engage with another club, contrary to the
Player’s claims.
•
The Player had the documents in two languages, did not contest or ask for clarification, and
signed them by consent without any threat.
25. As to the Termination Agreement, the Club presented the following document via courier:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14070
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14070
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. 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 15 March 2024 and submitted
for decision on 19 June 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023
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.
27. Subsequently, 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 (June 2024 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 Ghanaian Player and a Libyan club.
28. 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 (June 2024 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 March 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
29. 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
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
30. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14070
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
31. The Chamber moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that this is a
claim for breach of contract filed by the Player against the Club. According to the Claimant,
the Club was no longer interested in his services and forced him to sign a document, i.e.,
the “Player Clearance” document, which he refused. He then left Libya. The Player also
stated the Termination Agreement contains a forged signature.
32. The Club, for its part, denies any wrongdoing and alleges that the Player requested the
termination of the Contract, thus the parties signed the Termination Agreement, the Player
was given his clearance to engage with other clubs, and left Libya with the flight tickets
procured by the Club.
33. As such, the Chamber confirmed that the issue to be resolved is whether the Termination
Agreement is valid, and the consequences that follow.
34. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC proceeded to analyse the documentation provided
by both parties in support of their respective positions. According to the last sentence of
art. 13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber recalled it has ultimate discretion to as
to the weight it gives to evidence.
35. At this stage, the DRC considered appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s
deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the
ones of alleged falsified signature or documents, and that such affairs fall into the
jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. In order to be able to solve such
disputes in a satisfactory and timely manner, without the need to wait for the initiation and
conclusion of a potential criminal investigation, the Football Tribunal adopts a practical
procedure in such cases, namely to request the party who claims the authenticity of the
disputed document to provide its original version via regular mail. If for a layman the
document appears to be authentic and in line with the further documentation on file, such
document is considered as authentic for the purposes of solving the dispute at hand.
36. After thoroughly analysing the documentation produced by the parties, the DRC noted that
the Respondent provided the original of the Termination Agreement, which however does
not match the document presented in its statement of defense. To outline the differences
in the said documents, the DRC compared both specimens and highlighted the relevant
details. Accordingly, as displayed below, the document on the left is the original provided
by the Club via DHL, and the one on the right the copy uploaded with the Respondent’s
statement of defense. The main differences in both specimens are marked red:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14070
37. The DRC accordingly concluded from the above that the Respondent has presented two
documents which, albeit having the same content, have some important differences, which
mainly concern placement of stamps and signatures, further noticeable ink markings, and
important differences in the signatures.
38. In addition, the DRC proceeded to compare player’s signature in those documents to other
ones available on file and in TMS:
Bank Account registration form:
Power of Attorney:
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14070
The contract:
Player’s Ghanaian passport available in TMS:
Payment receipt on file:
39. The DRC therefore concluded in line with the practice explained before that for a layman, the
Player has used similar but not identical signatures at different times.
40. Considering the very particular set of circumstances outlined before, and moreover taking into
further consideration that the Respondent has provided two different specimens of the
Termination Agreement, the DRC finds that there are some genuine doubts as to the validity of
this document in line with Football Tribunal’s layman approach. More importantly, the Club has
also not provided the DRC with any explanation whatsoever as to why this was the case.
41. In addition, the DRC noted that the Player did not gain anything with the Termination
Agreement (except that he became a free agent, but in exchange for not receiving any salaries
anymore), and he reacted fairly quickly by filing his claim on 15 March 2024, that is, 2.5 months
after the alleged termination, in spite of not placing the Club in default at any time. In addition,
the DRC underlined that the video evidence cannot demonstrate that the Player has signed the
Termination Agreement, moreover considering the Player disputed the relevant occasion of the
footage and the document concerned.
42. Therefore, in light of these elements, the DRC concluded that the Respondent failed to meet its
burden of proof to demonstrate, to the necessary degree of satisfaction, that the Termination
Agreement is authentic. The DRC therefore decided said document must be set aside.
43. As a consequence, the DRC determined that the Club has caused the Contract to be terminated
on 5 January 2024 by issuing the flight tickets and the clearance letter, both of which
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14070
demonstrate the Club was no longer interested in retaining the Player’s services – which is in
line with the Player’s narrative in these proceedings. It followed in the DRC’s opinion that the
Club did not have just cause to terminate the Contract and must endure the consequences that
follow.
ii. Consequences
44. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences
of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent. In doing so, it confirmed
that no outstanding remuneration is due to the Player given that the second payment under
the Contract was scheduled to 15 January 2024, that is, after the Player left Libya.
45. 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 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.
46. 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.
47. As a consequence, 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 nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount
of compensation payable.
48. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded with
the calculation of the monies payable under the Contract from the date of its unilateral
termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD
30,000 (i.e., the residual value of the Contract corresponding to 2 payments of USD 15,000 each)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
49. 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14070
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.
50. Indeed, the Player has remained unemployed following the termination of the Contract.
51. 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 termination did not
take place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club, and therefore decided that the
Player is not entitled to receive additional compensation.
52. 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 USD 30,000 to
the Player, which was considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present matter. To this effect, the DRC underlined that the Player’s
request for additional damages of USD 10,000 both unjustified and unproven in his
submissions, as well as lacks in any event contractual or regulatory basis. It was accordingly
rejected by the DRC.
53. 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 15 January 2024 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14070
57. 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.
58. 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
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-14070
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kofi Kordzi, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al-Tahaddy Benghazi, must pay to the Claimant USD 30,000 as
compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 5
January 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-14070
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 18