Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4243
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 January 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Abdu
Lumala
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson
Sihon Gauci (Malta), member
Laurel Varasi (Fiji), member
CLAIMANT:
Abdu Lumala, Uganda
Represented by Batinde Loimba
RESPONDENT:
Pyramids FC, Egypt
Represented by Rolf Müller
Page 2
REF FPSD-4243
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 25 July 2019, the Ugandan player Abdu Lumala (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the
Egyptian club Pyramids FC (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment
agreement (hereinafter: the contract), valid in the period between 25 July 2019 and 30 June
2022, based on which the Claimant was entitled to receive the following amounts:
USD 400,000 for the 2019/2020 season, as follows:
• USD 125,000 on 30 July 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 August 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 September 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 October 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 November 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 December 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 January 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 28 February 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 30 March 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 30 April 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 30 May 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 30 June 2020.
USD 400,000 for the 2020/2021 season, as follows:
• USD 125,000 on 30 July 2020
• USD 25,000 on 30 August 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 30 September 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 30 October 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 30 November 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 30 December 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 30 January 2021;
• USD 25,000 on 28 February 2021;
• USD 25,000 on 30 March 2021;
• USD 25,000 on 30 April 2021;
• USD 25,000 on 30 May 2021;
• USD 25,000 on 30 June 2021.
USD 400,000 for the 2021/2022 season, as follows:
• USD 125,000 on 30 July 2021;
• USD 25,000 on 30 August 2021;
• USD 25,000 on 30 September 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 October 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 November 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 December 2019;
• USD 25,000 on 30 January 2020;
• USD 25,000 on 28 February 2020;
Page 3
REF FPSD-4243
•
•
•
•
USD 25,000 on 30 March 2020;
USD 25,000 on 30 April 2020;
USD 25,000 on 30 May 2020;
USD 25,000 on 30 June 2020.
2.
Art. 3.6 of the contract contains the following clause: ‘The club may not prevent the player
from training’.
3.
On 6 September 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for the outstanding
salaries, providing it a 15 days’ deadline to remedy its default, however to no avail.
4.
On 12 September 2021, the Claimant informed the Respondent that the Egyptian embassy
in Uganda could only issue a visa for the Claimant to enter Egypt, in case the Foreign Affairs
Ministry would issue a letter, as the Respondent did not register the Claimant.
5.
On 30 September 2021, the Respondent offered the Claimant to open negotiations on an
amicable settlement, however the parties were not able to find an amicable settlement.
6.
On 10 October 2021, the Claimant again put the Respondent in default, this time for the
amount of USD 200,000, providing it a 15 days’ deadline to remedy its default, however to
no avail.
7.
On 12 October 2021, the Claimant (who in the meanwhile had returned to Egypt) was asked
by the Respondent to leave his apartment, as he would be housed in another apartment, and
on 14 October 2021, the Claimant was banned by the head coach from training with the
Respondent’s first team.
8.
On 27 October 2021, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract with the Respondent,
because of the outstanding salaries, his exclusion from the Respondent’s team (which is a
breach of art. 3.6 of the contract) and the behavior of the Respondent in general.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 9 November 2021, 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
10. In his claim, the Claimant explains that in the season 2019/2020, no problems occurred, but
that as from the 2020/2021 season, he did not play in a single match, as he was dropped
from the official team list for foreign players. Already in this season, the Respondent hardly
paid the Claimant on time.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4243
11. What is more, in the third season, 2021/2022, the Claimant again did not timely receive his
salary payments and – after having been called up for the Ugandan national team in August
2021 and having played a match against Ethiopia – the Respondent failed to provide him a
return visa to enter the Egyptian territory.
12. In conclusion, the Claimant is of the opinion that the Respondent, by failing to pay him several
salaries, excluding him from the Respondent’s first team and its general behaviour, caused
the Claimant to terminate the contract unilaterally, for which he had just cause.
13. As a result, the Claimant deems that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract.
14. The requests for relief of the Claimant, as amended, were the following:
Outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 200,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
27 October 2021, as follows:
•
•
•
•
USD 125,000 as outstanding sign-on fee, due on 30 July 2021;
USD 25,000 as outstanding salary due on 30 June 2021;
USD 25,000 as outstanding salary due on 30 August 2021;
USD 25,000 as outstanding salary due on 30 September 2021.
Compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of USD 225,000, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 27 October 2021, as follows:
•
9 monthly salaries of USD 25,000 each as residual value of the contract in the period
between October 2021 and June 2022.
The Claimant also requested an amount of EUR 10,000 as reimbursement of legal costs.
b. Position of the Respondent
15. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the Claimant’s claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. 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 9 November 2021 and submitted for
decision on . Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 edition of the
Page 5
REF FPSD-4243
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
17. 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 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 Ugandan player and
an Egyptian club.
18. 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 (August 2021 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 9 November 2021, the August 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
19. 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
20. 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
21. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the Claimant is of the opinion that, due to several outstanding
salaries, as well as the fact that he was excluded from the Respondent’s first team, that he
was forced to leave his apartment and that the Respondent failed to provide him with a return
visa after his international duties with the national team of Uganda, he had terminated the
contract with just cause on 27 October 2021.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4243
22. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response
to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so on 12 November 2021
to the email address that was on said date registered I the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
Consequently, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent had renounced to its right of
defence and, thus, had accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
23. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the members of the Chamber
concurred that, in accordance with art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be
taken upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements
and documents presented by the Claimant.
24. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its 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 the mentioned circumstances could be sufficiently deemed
substantiated, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14 and/or 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
25. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of
at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
26. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to 3 monthly salaries of USD 25,000 each, due on respectively 30 June, 30
August and 30 September 2021, as well as a sign-on fee in the amount of USD 125,000,
which fell due on 31 July 2021. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant has
provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 10 October 2021, i.e.
at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 27 October 2021.
27. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the
parties. Nonetheless, in absence of a reply from the Respondent, said allegations of the
Claimant had remained uncontested.
28. The Chamber deemed it further important to express that also the player’s allegations that
he was excluded from the Respondent’s first team, that he was forced to leave his apartment
and that he was provided assistance in obtaining a return visa after his international duty with
the national team of Uganda, remained uncontested by the Respondent.
29. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the
contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
Page 7
REF FPSD-4243
ii. Consequences
30. 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 Respondent.
31. 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 under
the contract, amounting to USD 25,000 each, as well as a sign-on fee in the amount of USD
125,000.
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which
were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 200,000.
33. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of USD 200,000 as from 27 October 2021 until the
date of effective payment.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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 contract from
Page 8
REF FPSD-4243
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of USD 225,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract in the period between
October 2021 and June 2022, that is, 9 monthly salary payments of USD 25,000 each) serves
as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
38. 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.
39. In this respect, it turned out that the player – after the unilateral termination of the contract
– remained unemployed. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that no further mitigation shall
apply on the residual value of the contract, nor that any additional compensation as per art.
17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations shall be awarded to the Claimant.
40. 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 225,000
to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
41. 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 9 November 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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
Page 9
REF FPSD-4243
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.
45. 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.
46. 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
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 10
REF FPSD-4243
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Abdu Lumala, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Pyramids FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- USD 200,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. until the effective date of
payment as follows:
• on the amount of USD 25,000 as from 1 July 2021;
• on the amount of USD 125,000 as from 31 July 2021;
• on the amount of USD 25,000 as from 31 August 2021;
• on the amount of USD 25,000 as from 1 October 2021.
- USD 225,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 9 November 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 banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration the ban shall
be of 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.
5. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 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 11
REF FPSD-4243
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 12