Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15053
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Oleg Zadubrovskiy (Russia), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Suzanne Daniel Lamah, Guinea
Represented by FIFPro Africa
RESPONDENT:
Association Générations Solidarité de Tanger (AGS), Morocco
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15053
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 August 2022, the Guinean player Suzanne Lamah Daniel (hereinafter: Claimant or
player) and the Moroccan club AGS Tanger (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signature, for two
seasons, until 30 June 2024.
2.
In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia the following remuneration:
-
A monthly salary of MAD 2,600;
A signature bonus of MAD 6,000;
Match bonuses in accordance with the internal club regulations.
3.
Furthermore, according to art. 10 of the Contract, the parties agreed that in case of a
premature termination of the Contract, the damaged party would be entitled to
compensation in the amount of the residual value of the Contract.
4.
On 28 July 2023, the parties mutually terminated the Contract (hereinafter: the Settlement).
Such Settlement reads as follows:
“In order to proceed with the amicable resolution of the Contract concluded between the two
parties, and after an exchange of the relevant points, it has been decided to establish the
following terms:
The player, Lamah Suzanne Daniel declares expressly having received all her due amounts
(signature bonuses or otherwise) up to the date of termination of the aforementioned Contract.
In this respect, she expressly declares giving the discharge of all obligations to AGS.
The parties expressly acknowledge that the present document acts as a definitive termination of
the Contract.”
(Freely translated from French):
« À l’effet de procéder à la résiliation, à l’amiable, et avant terme du contrat conclude entre les
deux parties.
Après un échange de points de vue, il a été décidé d’établir le présent procès-verbal, à conditions
suivantes :
La joueuse Lamah Suzane Daniel déclare expressément avoir reçu de l’AGS tous ses
émoulements (primes signature ou autres) dus à la date de résiliation dudir contrat ; a ce titre,
il déclare donner quittance entière et définitive à l’AGS.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15053
Les parties reconnaissent expressément que le présent procès-verbal fait foi de document de
résiliation définitive du contrat. »
5.
On 22 May 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the amount of
MAD 23,200, granting a deadline of 10 days to comply with the financial obligations of the
Contract, in particular:
-
MAD 5,200 corresponding to the salaries of June 2023 and July 2023;
MAD 6,000 corresponding to the signature bonus;
MAD 4,000 corresponding to match bonuses;
MAD 3,500 corresponding to visa costs;
MAD 4,500 flight ticket costs for joining the club at the beginning of the season
2022/2023.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 27 June 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is set out below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to comply with the financial obligations
of the Contract.
8.
The Claimant emphasised that she put the Respondent in default of payment, to no avail,
to corroborate her argument that she was entitled to claim outstanding remuneration
under the Contract.
9.
The Claimant equally pointed out that, whilst acknowledging the signature of the
Settlement on her part, that:
“With regard to the mutual termination, said document states that the Club paid all dues to the
Player, which is obviously untrue. Should the FIFA DRC find such declaration to be conclusive, it
is hereby underlined that the Player could not validly waive any remuneration for the work she
had already performed.”
10. Thus, the Claimant invoked the principle of pacta sunt servanda to request the following
amounts, as well as interest and sanctions under art. 12bis RSTP:
-
MAD 3,500 as reimbursement for visa costs;
MAD 3,403 as reimbursement for flight ticket costs to join the club at the beginning of
the Contract;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15053
-
MAD 6,000 as sign-on fee;
MAD 2,600 as salary for June 2023;
MAD 2,600 as salary for July 2023;
MAD 4,000 as match bonus entitlement.
b. Position of the Respondent
11. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide a response to the
claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15053
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 27 June 2024 and submitted for decision on
22 August 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.
13. Furthermore, 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 (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 Guinean player
and a Moroccan club.
14. 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 27 June 2024, the June 2024 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. 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
16. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15053
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the basis of the present dispute is the alleged non-payment of various amounts under the
Contract.
18. Whilst the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to contest the non-payment of the
amounts in dispute, it deemed it important to refer to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
pursuant to which a party that asserts a certain fact also bears the burden of proving its
veracity.
19. Consequently, the Chamber understood that it had to, first of all, establish whether or not
the Claimant was entitled to the amounts which are being claimed, before ruling that such
amounts unlawfully remained in default on the Respondent’s part.
20. The Chamber then recalled that, in addition to visa expenses and a reimbursement for
flight expenses allegedly incurred by herself, the Claimant requested salaries, bonuses and
a signature bonus under the Contract.
21. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the Settlement which was mutually signed by the
parties on 28 July 2023. Pursuant to such document, the parties agreed inter alia as follows:
“The player, Lamah Suzanne Daniel declares expressly having received all her due amounts
(signature bonuses or otherwise) up to the date of termination of the aforementioned Contract.
In this respect, she expressly declares giving the discharge of all obligations to AGS.”
22. Having analysed the wording of the above, the Chamber considered that this document
represented on one hand a mutual termination agreement, whereby the parties amicably
decided to put a premature end to the employment relationship, and on the other hand,
as an unequivocal acknowledgement of receipt of all amounts that had fallen due under
the Contract up to said date.
23. The Chamber considered that, contrary to the assertion of the Claimant, the above cannot
be viewed as a “waiver of salaries for work performed”, since the Claimant, rather than
waiving any amounts that remained unpaid, is acknowledging payment thereof.
24. The Chamber considered that this contradicted the premise upon which a waiver exists –
namely that the amounts in question remained unpaid.
25. With this established, the Chamber did not fail to take note of the argument that the
contents of the Settlement are “obviously untrue”, and that the amounts remained unpaid.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15053
26. At this stage, the Chamber referred to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, pursuant
to which parties that find themselves in the process of signing documents with a binding
legal effect are taken to understand and bear the legal consequences of such documents.
27. Equally, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, and emphasised
that the burden of proving that such contents were either untrue or that such document
was signed under duress or another kind of undue influence laid with the Claimant.
28. Based on the evidence on file, the Chamber opined that it was not possible to establish
either that the contents of the document were untrue, nor that the document was signed
under any kind of undue influence.
29. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was unable to meet her burden of proving
that the amounts in dispute were due.
30. With this established, the Chamber continued to consider the request for reimbursement
based on the alleged costs incurred for the flight ticket at the beginning of the 2022-2023
season and the Claimant’s visa.
31. In respect of both of these amounts, the Chamber opined that the scarcity of evidence on
file made it difficult to establish that these costs were actually incurred by the Claimant.
32. On one hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant provided an electronic ticket receipt
related to the flight; however, solely according to such ticket, the Chamber was unable to
identify whether the cost of the ticket had actually been incurred by the Claimant herself,
or whether it was a ticket booked by the Respondent on her behalf. Such doubt was further
cemented by the fact that the email address on the ticket appeared to be related to the
Respondent (as it included the wording: “Tanger”).
33. On the other hand, concerning the alleged visa costs, the Respondent noted that the
Claimant included no evidence at all of having incurred such costs.
34. Thus, the Chamber saw no alternative but to also reject this part of the claim, based on the
failure of the Claimant to meet the requisite burden of proof.
35. In conclusion, the Chamber understood that the Claimant failed to demonstrate her
entitlement to the amounts in dispute, and that decided that, consequently, the claim at
hand was to be rejected.
d. Costs
36. 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,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15053
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
37. 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.
38. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15053
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Suzanne Lamah Daniel, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15053
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 11