Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-7387
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 February 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Abdullahi
Saminu Kwarri
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Jorge Gutierrez (Costa Rica), Member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Abdullahi Saminu Kwarri, Nigeria
Represented by Johnny Precious
RESPONDENT:
FK Spartaks, Latvia
Represented by Sila Lawyers
Page 2
REF FPSD-7387
I. Facts of the case
The employment contract between the player and the club
1.
On 12 July 2019, the Nigerian player, Mr Abdullahi Saminu Kwarri (hereinafter: the player
or the Claimant) and the Latvian club, FK Spartaks (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent),
concluded an employment contract valid as from the player’s registration until 15
November 2023 (hereinafter: the Employment Contract).
2.
According to the Employment Contract, the club undertook to pay the player a monthly
salary of EUR 1,004 payable “no later than the 10th day of each month”.
3.
In addition, clause 6.2 of the Employment Contract read inter alia as follows:
“6.2. An early termination of the Contract will be possible in the following cases:
[...]
6.2.2. the Football Player’s initiative:
- if the club does not keep the present Contract’s terms and if such a situation lasts
longer than two months. In accordance with Clause 103 of the Republic of Latvia’s Lavor
Code, the parties agree on the window time to notify of an early termination of the
Contract in, namely, one calendar month”.
The loan agreement between the player, the club and FC Veles
4.
On 26 July 2021, the player, the club, and the Russian club, FC Veles Moscow (hereinafter:
FC Veles) entered into a loan agreement by means of which the player was temporarily
transferred from the club to FC Veles from 27 July 2022 until 31 May 2022 (hereinafter:
the Loan Agreement).
The Addendum to the employment contract between the player and the club
5.
Also on 26 July 2021, the player and the club signed an Addendum to the Employment
Contract (hereinafter: the Addendum) by means of which: (i) the club agreed to release the
player on loan to FC Veles until 30 June 2022; and (ii) the employment relationship of the
parties was extended until 15 November 2024.
6.
Clause 2 of the Addendum read as follows: “all other articles of [the Employment Contract]
remain valid and unchanged”.
7.
In May, June, and July 2022, the player exchanged messages with representatives of the
club regarding his contractual situation and a potential agreement regarding the transfer
of the player to other clubs.
Page 3
REF FPSD-7387
8.
On 3 August 2022, the player put the club in default and requested payment of his salaries
of June and July 2020 within 15 days.
9.
On 19 August 2022, the player notified the club of the termination of the Employment
Contract due to overdue payables via e-mail. No amount was mentioned in such
correspondence.
10. On 24 August 2022, the player entered into a new employment agreement with the
Nigerian club, Jesus Amigos FC, valid for one season i.e., from the date of signature until
August 2023. Accordingly, the player would be entitled to a monthly remuneration of NGN
100,000.
11. On 7 September 2022, Jesus Amigos FC informed that the abovementioned agreement
was terminated because the player’s former club (i.e., the Respondent) had refused to
release his International Transfer Certificate (ITC).
12. Consequently, the player claimed that he could not in fact find an employment following
the termination of his contractual relationship with the club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 8 September 2023, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of the player
14. In his claim, the player firstly argued that despite being entitled to a monthly salary of EUR
1,000, the club did only pay him EUR 770 per month from September 2020 until June 2021
– arriving at a debt of EUR 2,530 (i.e., EUR 230 * 11 months).
15. Secondly, the player pointed out that after the end of his loan to FC Veles on 31 May 2022,
he tried to discuss his next steps with the club. However, as no agreement was reached,
he “left for summer holidays in Nigeria”, during which his visa expired (14 July 2022).
16. According to the player, he contacted the club several times to arrange his
documentation, to no avail. In this context, he referred to his default letters of 3 and 19
August 2022 and concluded that – due to the persistent failure of the club and the lack of
reply to his warning – the Employment Contract was terminated with just cause in line
with art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
17. Based on the above, the player requested to be awarded the total sum of EUR 41,530,
broken down as follows:
Page 4
REF FPSD-7387
a. EUR 2,530 as the balance of his salaries from September 2020 until June 2021 (i.e.,
for the period before the loan to FC Veles);
b. EUR 3,000 as the salaries from June until August 2022 (i.e., EUR 1,000 each);
c. EUR 26,000 as the residual value of the Contract, corresponding to his salaries from
September 2022 until November 2024 (i.e., EUR 1,000 * 26 months); and
d. EUR 10,000 as legal fees.
18. The player did not claim any interest over the cited amounts.
b. Reply of the club
19. On 13 October 2022, the club filed its reply to the player’s claim and opposed to his
allegations as to the justice for the termination of the Employment Contract.
20. The club initially argued that following the expiry of the loan to FC Veles, the player
“reached out to the Respondent’s President and Director to inform them about his wish to look
for a new club and not to return to the Respondent, which the latter respected and considered
the Contract terminated on June 1, 2022”. In support of its position, the club highlighted that
it had never authorised the player to go on holidays, as well as pointed out that the player
did not advance any evidence that he had ever tried to resume his services – especially
when considering that the player acknowledged having a valid visa until 14 July 2022 but
confirmed that he remained in Nigeria until then.
21. By the same token, the club also challenged the player’s allegations that he tried to
contact the club and outlined that no supporting documentation was provided to this
extent. The club inter alia remarked that the player had never requested it to renew his
visa, therefore corroborating that “he lost interest in performing the Contract”.
22. In parallel, the club pointed out that at the time the default notice was sent by the player
(i.e., 3 August 2022), his salary of July 2022 was not overdue. What is more, in said
opportunity the player did not mention any balance for outstanding remuneration of the
previous year, nor made any reference to flight tickets or administrative issues preventing
him to resume his services. Consequently, the club concluded that the player “had no
interest in performing the Contract after his loan to Russia expired and unilaterally terminated
the Contract on June 1, 2022, through his implicit (passive) conduct during June and July 2022”.
23. Given the foregoing, the club referred to the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS) and alleged that the analysis of the just cause for the termination should be
entertained exclusively on the basis of the default notice, hence overdue payables
corresponding to the salaries of June and July 2022. As such, it concluded that no such
Page 5
REF FPSD-7387
just cause existed insofar as (i) the salaries of June and July 2022 were not due because
the player did not return to the club’s premises after the expire of the loan agreement;
and (ii) in any event, the salary of July 2022 was not yet due at the time the default notice
was sent (i.e., only on the 10th day of August 2022), therefore less than 2 monthly salaries
were outstanding.
24. It follows from the above, in the club’s view, that neither the requirements of article 14bis
of the FIFA RSTP (in combination with clause 6.2.2 of the Employment Contract) were
fulfilled, nor did he have just cause under art. 14 of the FIFA RSTP. It concluded in this
regard, as follows: “after declaring his wish to part ways with the Respondent in June 2022,
being unemployed in June and July, and failing to find a new club during the summer
registration period, apparently incited by his advisor, in August 2022, the Claimant
orchestrated a fake termination procedure aiming to claim damages from the Respondent in
pursuit of undue enrichment. Be that as it may, the DRC should see over the background and
should not buy the Claimant’s unsubstantiated version of facts. Deception, lying, and bad faith
do not merit protection from the DRC”.
25. Having established the above, the club requested the player’s claim to be entirely
rejected. Additionally, he made the following remarks regarding the quantum sought:
•
Balance of the salaries from September 2020 until June 2021: the player had
never claimed such amounts before, thus acted in bad faith by seeking relief
before FIFA only (venire contra factum proprium). In any event, the amounts were
stipulated in the Employment Contract gross, hence the balance requested by
the player corresponded to the tax deductions of around EUR 230 per month
directly paid to the national authorities;
•
Salaries from June to September 2022: undue because no service was rendered
by the player after the expiry of the loan agreement;
•
Compensation for breach of contract: given that the termination took place
without just cause, no compensation was payable. Alternatively, in case the DRC
decided otherwise, any amount should be mitigated bearing in mind the
player’s new employment relationship with Jesus Amigos FC;
•
Procedural fees: not applicable based on art. 25, par. 8 of the Procedural Rules
Governing the Football Tribunal.
26. The requests for relief of the club were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“80. On these grounds, the Respondent thereby requests that the DRC reject the
Claimant’s claims in their entirety insofar as they are admissible.
Page 6
REF FPSD-7387
81. Alternatively, only if the above is rejected, the Respondent hereby requests that the
DRC use the correcting factor under the ‘specificity of sport’ criterion per Article 17.1
RSTP to completely deny or at least to significantly reduce, at its own discretion, any
Respondent’s liability for damages towards the Claimant.
82. In any event, the Respondent hereby requests that the DRC dismiss the Claimant’s
claim for legal fees insofar as it is admissible”.
27. The club did not file a counterclaim against the player.
c. Rejoinder of the player
28. On 30 October 2022, the player filed his rejoinder on this matter and challenged the
position of the club as follows.
29. The player provided copies of messages allegedly exchanged with the club’s
representatives (i.e., the president and the team manager) via the electronic application
WhatsApp. In this respect, he highlighted that the club did not show any interest in
receiving the player back, but rather was trying to find him another employment. Thus,
the player alleged that “contrary to the Respondent’s claim that [he] was passive during the
period between his Russian loan expiring and his default notice, the above chats and
conversations [...] showed clearly his attempts to reach the Respondent and how these were
rebuffed because he was not welcome back at the Respondent who were desperately looking
for where to transfer him to”.
30. In addition to the above, the player disputed the club’s position that he was never
authorized to leave on holidays. He mentioned that the club never opposed his leave as
well as it failed (i) to provide any concrete reply to his text messages in connection with
the following contractual steps; (ii) to issue the return air ticket following the end of the
loan; and (iii) to adopt the necessary administrative steps in order to extend his visa.
Likewise, the player pointed out that he was not re-registered after the end of the loan,
meaning that he would be ineligible to play in case he returned to Nigeria.
31. Consequently, the player reiterated that the employment contract was terminated on 19
August 2022, with just cause due to overdue payables. In this respect, he also outlined
that (i) in the absence of a clear contractual provision establishing that the salary should
be paid in arrears for the previous month, it should be considered that the salary of July
2022 fell due on the 10th of the same month, therefore was already outstanding at the
time the default notice was sent; and (ii) clause 6.2.2 of the Employment Contract was also
complied with because he notified the termination within one month of the breach and,
in any event, the criteria set out in art. 14bis of the FIFA RSTP were fulfilled.
Page 7
REF FPSD-7387
32. In continuation, the player turned to the quantum due by the club and underlined that
there was no mention to “gross” amounts in the Employment Contract – hence the
salaries should be considered net.
33. Finally, the player informed that his contractual relationship with Jesus Amigos FC was
terminated due to the club’s refusal to deliver the ITC. Consequently, no mitigation should
apply.
34. The player summarized his allegations as follows, in his own words:
“56. The Respondent has treated the Applicant like an outcast, refusing to make
provision for him to return to them after his loan and making it clear that his future was
away from them and that they were actively looking to transfer him to another club.
57. During this period, they deliberately refused to pay him his salary or assist him renew
his visa. They were only interested in moving him on to another club for their profit.
58. Despite his reaching out to them, they did not send him a ticket to return to Riga, or
an invitation letter and other documents with which to renew his Latvian visa. They did
not also provide him with the contractually agreed return ticket to Nigeria. Bottomline,
they did not care about his welfare. All they concentrated on was how to transfer him.
Their position that he should have asked for an air ticket to return after his loan is
absurd. They bought the ticket to Russia, and it is the duty of the club to buy the return
ticket too. They knew what they were doing when they bought only a one-way ticket at
the beginning of the loan. They never wanted him back.
59. He found his way back to Nigeria and kept asking the Respondent officials their plans
for him. They did not tell him anything meaningful. And as they owed him more than 2
months' salary he legally terminated the contract in order to move on with his career.
60. In their statement of defence the Respondents have lied and tried to mislead this
honourable tribunal repeatedly. They accused the Applicant as being 'completely
passive and incommunicado from June-July 2022 whereas Exhibit 1 clearly shows that
this was a lie. They also tried to mislead this honourable tribunal by twisting the content
of the contract such as trying to add the words 'next' and 'gross' into the contract where
they did not exist.
61. Their statement in Article 76 of their response that 'In particular, the Claimant did
not ask for an air ticket from Abuja to Riga, his work permit renewal, or reintegration
into the Respondent's team' amount to nothing less than deception, lying and were
made in bad faith in an attempt to mislead this honourable tribunal.
Page 8
REF FPSD-7387
62. To borrow their own words, ' deception, lying, and bad faith do not merit protection
from the DRC'. Subsequently, we urge you to disregard their response and rule in the
Applicant's favour.
35. In light of the above, the player requested his claim be entirely accepted.
d. Final comments of the club
36. On 6 November 2022, the club filed its final comments on this matter. The club initially
underlined that the player did not return or showed any interest on resuming his services
with the club following the loan with FC Veles was ended – therefore, he could not invoke
his own turpitude (nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans). In this respect, the club
confirmed the exchange of messages with the player but pointed out that they do not
have legal effect because this type of exchange requires a certain degree of formality that
was not exercised.
37. In any event, the club alleged that the text messages corroborated that (i) the player was
aware of his need to resume his services but was no longer interest in the continuity of
their employment relationship; and (ii) the player did not render any services following
the loan period, hence should not be entitled to any payment (exceptio non adimpleti
contract).
38. In continuation, the club insisted that the termination of the Employment Contract by the
player did not fulfill the criteria of art. 14bis of the FIFA RSTP, hence it took place without
just cause. Alternatively, it argued that no compensation should be awarded to the player
due to his behaviour and in line with the principle of specificity of sport mentioned in art.
17 of the FIFA RSTP.
39. In conclusion, the club requested the claim of the player be rejected.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. 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 08 September 2022 and
submitted for decision on 23 February 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of
the October 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.
Page 9
REF FPSD-7387
41. Subsequently, the members of 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 par.
1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2022 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 an
Nigerian player and a Latvian club.
42. 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 (October 2022 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 September 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
43. 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
44. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
45. The foregoing having been established, the DRC moved to the substance of the matter, and
took note of the fact that this is a claim of a player against a club for outstanding
remuneration and compensation breach of contract.
46. The player terminated the Employment Contract on 19 August 2022 based on overdue
payables (i.e., the salaries of June and July 2022). The parties dispute the justice of such
termination and the consequences that follow.
47. In this context, the DRC acknowledged that is task was to determine the following:
Page 10
REF FPSD-7387
(i)
Which amounts were outstanding at the time the player put the club in default
and subsequently terminated the Employment Contract?
(ii)
Was the Employment Contract terminated with just cause?
(iii)
What are the consequences that follow?
48. The Chamber moved then to the analysis of each topic in turn.
A. Which amounts were outstanding at the time the player put the club in default
and subsequently terminated the Employment Contract?
49. As a departure point and bearing in mind that the player grounded the premature
termination of the Employment Contract on overdue payables, the DRC considered that
the core issue of the case at stake pertains to the calculation of the amounts that were
outstanding at the time of the default notice was addressed by the player to the club and
the Employment Contract was ended vis-à-vis the wording of art. 14bis of the Regulations.
50. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the parties dispute the player’s entitlement to: (i)
the balance of his salaries from September 2020 until June 2021 (i.e., pre-loan to FC Veles);
and (ii) his salaries from June to September 2022 in particular considering that he was not
rendering services to the club at the time and the effective due date for each of the
salaries.
51. In view of this dissent between the parties, the DRC initially turned to the analysis of the
first of the abovementioned issues. In this respect, the Chamber found it decisive that:
•
the salary of the player was stipulated in the Employment Contract gross, hence
there was a margin for tax deductions to be applied by the club;
•
indeed, the club provided convincing evidence that the balance claimed by the
player for the period before the loan corresponded to the amount of taxes paid
to the relevant authorities;
•
in spite of being provided with an opportunity to do so, the player did not
advance any counterevidence to challenge the club’s argumentation and its
supporting documentation; and
•
in contrast, despite suggesting that the club had never paid him the full amount
due as salary, the player did not file any evidence of having ever requested any
additional payment for the entire duration of the employment relationship with
the club. What is more, the player did not include such “debt” in his default
notice of August 2022, which corroborates the fact that the amount sub judice
Page 11
REF FPSD-7387
in fact corresponded to tax deductions and had already been tacitly
acknowledged by the player.
52. Taking the above into consideration, the DRC considered that the player could not meet
his burden of proof to demonstrate his entitlement to any residual amount for the
2020/2021 (cf. art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules). As such, the Chamber decided that
such concepts shall not be awarded and his argumentation in this respect shall be set
aside.
53. In continuation, the DRC moved to the analysis of the outstanding payments for the
2022/2023 season. In this respect, it remained undisputed between the parties that the
player was on loan with FC Veles until May 2022, following which the Employment
Contract – and the parties’ rights and obligations therein established – would be
reinstated.
54. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber outlined that it was also not disputed that the
player did not resume his services following the end of the loan but returned to his birth
country on holidays. In this connection, and as opposed to the club’s argumentation on
the contrary, the DRC deemed that the absence of further documentation and exchanges
between the parties plays a determinant role against the Respondent. This is because,
whereas the player filed extracts of conversations demonstrating that he intended to
resume his services with the club, the latter could not demonstrate that (i) it had ever
requested the player to return and/or provided him with the means to do so; (ii) it put the
player in default by any means; or (iii) they entered in any type if agreement capable of
supporting its assumption that no remuneration should be delivered for the relevant
period.
55. In addition to the above, the Chamber moreover considered that the club could not prove
that the player was the one willing to terminate their employment relationship, or even
that this was the mutual intention of the parties. On the contrary, from the
documentation on file it appeared that the club took charge of finding him a new deal
(possibly with the acceptance of his agent), however it failed to fulfill its financial duties in
the meanwhile, when the Employment Contract was still valid and binding to the parties.
56. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the player should be entitled to receive his salaries
as from the expiry of the loan with FC Veles i.e., June 2022. Furthermore, and once again
to the detriment of the position of the club, the Chamber concurred with the player that,
in the absence of a lack contractual provision establishing that the payment should be
made in arrears for the previous month (or that the this referred to the subsequent
month), the due date of his salaries should be “the 10th day of each month”. In other words,
the DRC considered that the salary of June 2022 fell due on 10 June 2022, the salary of
July 2022 fell due on 10 July 2022, and so it goes for the duration of the Employment
Contract.
Page 12
REF FPSD-7387
57. It followed from the above, in the Chamber’s view, that at the time the player put the club
in default (i.e., 3 August 2022), his salaries of June and July 2022 were outstanding.
B. Was the Employment Contract terminated with just cause?
58. At this point, the DRC recalled that at the time the default notice was sent two salaries
were outstanding (i.e., EUR 2,008). Furthermore, the player granted the club with a
reasonable deadline (i.e. 15 days) in order to remedy its breach, to no avail.
59. Thus, as per its solid jurisprudence, the DRC deemed that such persistent and substantial
non-compliance of the contractual obligations by the club could justify the unilateral
termination of the contract as well as it could hold the club liable for breach of contract.
As such, based on the factual and contractual situation, the Chamber decided that the
player had just cause to terminate the Employment Contract (cf. art. 14bis of the
Regulations).
60. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber was also observant that the club referred to
the wording of clause 6 of the Employment Contract to support its allegation that the
termination by the player was “premature”. Nevertheless, it underscored that such
provision was not entirely clear as to the procedure for the player to claim his overdue
payables and, in any event, no grace periods are accepted in line with art. 18 par. 6 of the
Regulations. Therefore, per the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, any
provision in this respect bears a potestative nature, hence is considered null and void.
C.
What are the consequences that follow?
61. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
club.
62. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 3 salaries (i.e.,
June, July, and August 2022) under the Employment Contract, amounting to EUR 3,012.
63. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player such amount.
64. In addition, the DRC stressed that per its constant practice in this regard, the player would
be in principle entitled to interest on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due
dates until the date of effective payment. Nevertheless, as the player did not request
specifically interest over the outstanding remuneration, the DRC deemed that it was
prevented from awarding such concept according to the principle of ne ultra petita.
Page 13
REF FPSD-7387
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. As a consequence, the members of 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 non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
68. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the
Employment Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 15,060 (i.e., the salaries
from September 2022 until November 2023 à EUR 1,004 each) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
69. 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 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.
70. Indeed, the player found employment with Jesus Amigos FC. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR 237.76 (i.e.,
NGN 100,000, with the exchange rate of the date of signature) per month. Therefore, the
Page 14
REF FPSD-7387
Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR
2,853.12, that is, 12 times EUR 237.76.
71. For the sake of completeness, the DRC outlined that – as opposed to the argumentation
of the player – the abovementioned mitigation was irrespective of the subsequent
termination / mutual departure from the contract by the player and Jesus Amigos FC at a
future stage.
72. 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
termination of the Employment Contract took place due to said reason i.e. overdue
payables by the club, and therefore decided that the player shall receive additional
compensation.
73. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
3,012, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
74. The Chamber stressed however that per art. 17 of the Regulations the total amount of
compensation awarded (including any mitigation and additional compensation) cannot
exceed the original residual value of the contract. Accordingly, the Chamber decided to
award instead EUR 2,853.12 to the player as additional compensation.
75. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR
15,060 to the player (i.e., EUR 15,060 minus EUR 2,853.12 plus EUR 2,853.12), which was to
be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
76. Lastly, the Chamber pointed out that alike with the outstanding remuneration, it was not
in a position to award interest to the player over the abovementioned compensation due
to the principle of ne ultra petita.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
77. 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.
Page 15
REF FPSD-7387
78. 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.
79. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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.
80. 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.
81. 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
82. 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.
83. 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.
84. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 16
REF FPSD-7387
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Abdullahi Saminu Kwarri, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FK Spartaks, has to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 3,012 as outstanding remuneration; and
- EUR 15,060 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
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
Page 17
REF FPSD-7387
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