Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-7006
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 28 September 2022
regarding a contractual dispute concerning the player
Guibihi Florent Didier Kore
BY:
André dos Santos Megale (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Al Batin, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Sport Makers
RESPONDENT:
Guibihi Florent Didier Kore, Côte d’Ivoire
Page 2
REF FPSD-7006
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 August 2020, the Saudi club Al Batin (hereinafter the Claimant or the club) and the
Ivorian player Guibihi Florent Didier Kore (hereinafter the Respondent or the player)
concluded a termination agreement (hereinafter the Termination Agreement), ending their
employment relationship.
2.
In Clause 2 of the Termination Agreement, the Claimant and the Respondent (jointly
referred to as the parties) agreed upon the following financial conditions:
−
−
USD 20,000 upon signing of the agreement;
USD 30,000 on 1 January 2021.
3.
On 6 June 2022, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent, requesting the
amount of EUR 50,000, corresponding to outstanding instalments. The Claimant granted
the Respondent 5 days to make the respective payment.
4.
In reply thereto, on 6 June 2022, the Respondent replied: “Bro you can talk to the ettiah
president because for me this matter is close don’t have anything to pay again”.
5.
On 12 June 2022, the Claimant reiterated its request and granted the Respondent
additional deadline of 5 days to comply with its contractual obligations, however, to no
avail.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 8 August 2022, 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
7.
The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
−
−
−
8.
“To consider the Respondent liable for violation of the Settlement Agreement without
any legal basis;
To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant the total amount of USD (50,000) as
outstanding salaries, as follows:
To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum
over entire amounts requested from the due date of each payment until the date of the
effective payment.”
The Claimant based its claim on the legal principle pacta sunt servanda.
Page 3
REF FPSD-7006
9.
Finally, the Claimant argued that the interest of 5% p.a. shall apply as follows:
− “USD 20,000 upon signing the Settlement Agreement (The interest shall be calculated
as of September 2020)
− USD 30,000 on 1 January 2021 (The interest shall be calculated as of February 2021)”.
b. Position of the Respondent
10. In his reply to the claim the Respondent objected to it without any further explanation.
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 also referred
to as the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand.
In this respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on
8 August 2022 and submitted for decision on 28 September 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.
12. Subsequently, 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022 edition), he is competent to
deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Saudi club and an Ivorian player.
13. 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 (July 2022 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 August 2022, the July 2022 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: 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 he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
Page 4
REF FPSD-7006
c. Merits of the dispute
15. 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,
the Single Judge 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
16. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note that this is a claim of a club against a player concerning outstanding
payment of a compensation arising from the Termination Agreement.
17. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that it his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact
remained unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification
for not having complied with its financial obligations.
18. The Single Judge first noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that he indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded
between the parties.
19. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that whereas the Respondent objected to the claim,
he did not substantiate his reply, neither provided for any evidence that any of the said
instalments were paid.
20. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pact sunt servanda,
which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the
outstanding amounts deriving from the contract concluded between the parties, namely
USD 50,000.
ii. Consequences
21. The Single Judge observed that the financial obligations deemed as outstanding in the
present case correspond to two instalments (USD 20,000 and USD 30,000) under the
Termination Agreement.
22. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant
Page 5
REF FPSD-7006
the amounts claimed as outstanding under the contract, in total USD 50,000, as detailed
above.
23. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as follows:
−
−
over the amount of USD 20,000 as from 1 September 2020 until the date of effective
payment;
over the amount of USD 30,000 as from 1 February 2021 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
24. 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.
25. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in
official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months.
26. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the player must pay
the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the club within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the creditor, a restriction on
playing in official matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become
immediately effective on the player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the
Regulations.
27. The player shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the club in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
28. 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
29. 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
Page 6
REF FPSD-7006
agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, he decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
30. 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.
31. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
Page 7
REF FPSD-7006
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Al Batin, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Guibihi Florent Didier Kore, has to pay to the Claimant, the following
amount(s):
- USD 20,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 30,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2021
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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 restricted on any football-related activity up until the due
amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to six
months.
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 six months.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8
REF FPSD-7006
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 9