Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2161
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 November 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Niang
Mbaye Hamdy
COMPOSITION:
ONGARO Omar (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
LUKASEK Peter (Slovakia), member
ZAPISOTSKIY Yuriy (Ukraine), member
CLAIMANT:
Niang Mbaye Hamdy, France
Represented by Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo
RESPONDENT:
Al Ahli FC, Saudi Arabia
Page 2
REF FPSD-2161
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 7 February 2021, the French player Niang Mbaye Hamdy (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
Player), the Saudi club Al Ahli FC (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club) and the French
club Stade Rennais signed a loan agreement, according to which the Claimant was
temporarily transferred to the Respondent.
2.
On the same date, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid
until 30 June 2021 (hereinafter: “the Contract”).
3.
According to Article 5 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to a total amount of EUR
1,349,500 as follows:
- “EUR 562,000 to be paid upon signing the employment contract.
- EUR 262,500 to be paid on the 15 April 2021.
- EUR 262,500 to be paid on the 15 May 2021.
- EUR 262,500 to be paid on the 15 June 2021.”
4.
On the same article, the Respondent agreed to provide inter alia “suitable accommodation”,
“adequate car” and “match bonus in accordance with Club’s list”.
5.
On 15 February 2021, the Club paid EUR 200,000 to the Player.
6.
On 15 March 2021, the Claimant sent a notice to the Respondent requesting “his financial
entitlements in full” and provided a 10-day deadline, to no avail.
7.
On 26 March 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand for overdue payables before the FIFA
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) against the Respondent.
8.
On 28 March 2021, a further formal reminder was sent to the Club on behalf of the Player
in which he reiterated that the Club had failed to pay the Player’s accommodation to the
hotel where he was lodged.
9.
On 21 April 2021, a further formal reminder was sent to the Respondent on the Player’s
behalf under the heading “FINAL REMINDER”, granting the Respondent with a 10-day
deadline to comply, to no avail.
10. On or around end of April 2021, the Player received the amount of EUR 40,000.
11. On 30 April 2021, the Respondent replied to the previous correspondence stating: “Contrary
to what you indicated in your letter the player cannot terminate the employment contract
only because the payment of only one monthly salary is delayed.”
Page 3
REF FPSD-2161
12. On the same day, the Claimant reverted back to the Respondent, contesting the arguments
from the latter and reiterating the previously given deadline. Furthermore, he stated that if
no payment was made, he “would consider that the Contract had been terminated without
just cause by the Club and would therefore file the corresponding claim before the FIFA
judicial bodies”.
13. On 1 May 2021, the Claimant sent a termination letter to the Respondent.
14. On 18 May 2021, the Claimant filed a second claim with FIFA requesting inter alia
compensation for breach of contract. Such claim was integrated in the present proceedings.
15. On 26 May 2021, the parties signed a Mutual Termination Agreement (hereinafter: the
Settlement).
16. On 1 July 2021, Stade Rennais enter a transfer instruction on TMS to re-register the Player.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. As stated before, on 26 March 2021, the Claimant filed the claim for overdue payables before
FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
18. The Claimant submitted that the accommodation provided by the Club could not be
considered “suitable”. Therefore, according to the Claimant, he “was obliged to inform the
Club that said accommodation was not appropriate for him and instead to get him the
suitable accommodation he was entitled to under the Contract at the Assila Luxury Collection
Hotel”.
19. In the view of the Claimant, the Club “seriously breached the principle of contractual stability,
enshrined in the FIFA RSTP, by failing to comply with the terms of the related Contract without
any just cause shortly after it enters into force”.
20. The Claimant submitted the following requests for relief
“1. To accept this Claim against the Respondent.
2. To condemn the Respondent to pay the Player the outstanding payments for a total
amount of EUR 362,000.
3. To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of 5 (five) per cent per annum over
entire amount requested from the due date of the payment until the date of the effective
payment.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2161
4. Impose the Club disciplinary sanctions - ban on registering new players - in accordance
with article 12 bis of the FIFA RSTP.
5. To fix a sum of EUR 5,000 to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant, to help the
payment of its legal fees and costs.
6. As consequence of the above, to condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and costs
of the present proceedings, if any.“
b. Position of the Respondent
21. According to the Respondent, it was “affected by this pandemic and as a result of this force
majeure, we have an important lack of financial liquidity at the present time due to the
absence of financial returns such as sponsorship, ticket revenue, television broadcast”.
22. The Respondent submitted that “contrary to what appears in the claimant's claim, the rest of
the Advance payment is EUR 253,019 and not EUR 362,000”.
23. The Respondent argued that it had provided for the Claimant “a suitable accommodation
according to the terms of the employment contract signed on 7 February 2021”. However,
the Respondent states that the Claimant by his letter addressed to the Club dated 13 March
2021 by which he asks and authorize the Club to pay the rent of a hotel by deducting this
amount from his salary.
24. The Respondent states that based on the request of the Claimant by his letter dated on 13
March 2021, on 11 April 2021 it paid the amount of SAR 203,644.88 to the Assila Hotel
Jeddah.
25. According to the Respondent, on 29 March 2021 the Claimant sent a letter by which he
asked the respondent to deduct the cost of the hospital expense related to medical fees of
his friend Mr Emannuel Dominiqua with an amount of SAR 21,777.56 (equivalent to 4,839
Euros) from his dues in order to pay the medical expense. The Respondent states it paid the
amount of SAR 21,777.56 (equivalent to 4,839.00 Euros) for the benefit of Saudi German
Hospital.
26. The Respondent submitted that, until 6 May 2021, the Claimant had received:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
EUR 200,000
SAR 40,000
SAR 45,000
SAR 203,666.88
EUR 40,000.00;
SAR 21,777.56
Page 5
REF FPSD-2161
27. The Respondent filed the following requests for relief
1. Accept partially the request of the Claimant by ordaining the respondent to pay only EUR
253,014.00 which represent the rest of the Advance payment.
2. Reject the request of the claimant regarding the payment of the legal fee and coast.
3. The Respondent reserve the right to submit any documents or evidences find useful
regarding the payment of the rest of the advance payment”.
c. New parallel claim of the Claimant
28. Following the reply of the Respondent, FIFA asked the Claimant to comment on the alleged
payments made by the Respondent. The Claimant, in turn, on 18 May 2021 filed a new claim
for breach of contract without just cause against the Respondent, i.e. his second claim as
detailed in the “facts” section above.
29. For the sake of procedural economy, the FIFA general secretariat integrated such new claim
in the present proceedings. The Claimant’s (amended) position is detailed in continuation.
30. In the view of the Claimant, the Club “offered an accommodation to the Player, however by
no means it could be considered as suitable for the Player and his family, and therefore the
Player was obliged to inform the Club that said accommodation was not appropriate for him
and instead to get him the suitable accommodation he was entitled to under the Employment
Contract at the Assila Luxury Collection Hotel”.
31. In the view of the Claimant, the Club “seriously breached the principle of contractual stability,
enshrined in the FIFA RSTP, by failing to comply with the terms of the related Employment
Contract without any just cause shortly after it enters into force.”
32. Thus, the Claimant submits he had “a clearest just cause for having considered as terminated
his Contract”.
33. The Claimant requested as follows:
“1. To accept this Claim against the Respondent.
2. To consider the Respondent liable for breach without just cause of the Contract.
3. To condemn the Respondent to pay the Player as outstanding remuneration the following
total sum
Page 6
REF FPSD-2161
3.1. EUR 362,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from the 7
February 2021 until the date of effective payment, as stated by the relevant FIFA proposal;
3.2. EUR 262,500 due on the 15 April 2021 plus 5% interest per annum as from 15 April
2021 until the date of effective payment;
3.3. EUR 131,250 due on the 1 May 2021 plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 May 2021
until the date of effective payment;
4. To condemn the Respondent to pay the Player as compensation for breach of contract
without just cause the following total sum:
4.1. EUR 131,250 which were to be paid on 15 May 2021 plus 5% interest per annum as
from the 15 May 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.2. EUR 262,500 which were to be paid on 15 June 2021 plus 5% interest per annum as
from 15 of June 2021 until the date of effective payment; AND
5. To also condemn the Respondent to pay an additional head of compensation under the
specificity of sport as provided for under the FIFA RSTP in the amount of six-monthly salaries.
6. To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of 5 (five) per cent per annum over
compensation and additional head of compensation amounts requested from the due date
of each payment until the date of the effective payment.
7. Ban the Club from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two
registration periods under article 17, paragraph 4 of the FIFA RSTP; AND
8. To fix a sum of EUR 10,000 to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant, to help the
payment of its legal fees and costs.
9. As consequence of the above, to condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and costs
of the present proceedings, if any.”
d. Position of the Respondent to the Amended Claim
34. On 28 May 2021, the FIFA general secretariat asked the Respondent to provide its position
to the (amended) claim. On 7 June 2021, the Respondent filed its corresponding reply.
35. The Respondent stated that the Claimant had received the amount of EUR 308,986 through
multiple payments as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
EUR 200,000
SAR 40,000
SAR 45,000
SAR 203,666.88
EUR 40,000.00;
SAR 21,777.56
Page 7
REF FPSD-2161
36. The Respondent stated that the Claimant had acknowledged that the Club provided him the
contractually agreed accommodation. However, the Claimant went to another choice on his
own expense without any objection stated in such letter to the accommodation granted by
the Club.
37. Moreover, the Respondent considers that the Claimant submitted his response on 18 May
2021 which means that he did not respect the time limit and missed the deadline.
38. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that on 26 May 2021 the parties had signed a settlement
agreement.
39. In this regard, art. 2 of the Settlement states:
“Based on that the Parties agree an overall payment of an amount of EUR 330,000 net as
outstanding remuneration and as compensation for the early termination of the employment
agreement this amount shall be paid by the Club to the player as follows:
SAR 229,500 net which represent the equivalent of EUR 50,000 paid on 26 May 2021 by
Check drawn on Riyad Bank Check Number:00003354
EUR 280,000 net on 05 June 2021 and shall be paid to the player on his bank account as
follows: (…)”
40. In this regard, the Respondent states that the amount of SAR 229,500 net which represent
the equivalent of EUR 50,000 was paid on 26 May 2021. Additionally, the amount of EUR
280,000 net was paid to the Claimant on 31 May 2021.
41. The Respondent requested as follows:
-
-
“Accept partially the request of the Claimant regarding the Signing fee by ordaining the
Respondent to pay only EUR 253,014.00 which represent the rest of the Advance payment
(Signing fee).
Reject the request of the claimant regarding the termination of the contract without just
cause.
Said that the contract between the club and the player was terminated amicably with a
compensation of 330,000 Euro which was paid by the Respondent.
Reject the request of the claimant regarding the payment of the legal fee and cost”.
e. Comments of the Claimant on the alleged settlement
42. Considering the alleged signature of a settlement raised by the Respondent, the FIFA general
secretariat reverted to the Claimant and required its position on the issue.
Page 8
REF FPSD-2161
43. The Claimant emphasized however that he wished to continue with the claim.
44. The Claimant submitted that he “find completely striking that the Club pretends that the
Player would have waived in full the amounts the Player clearly requested along the request
for relief above”, in an approximate amount of EUR 1,149,500 in consideration of EUR
330,000.
45. The Claimant states that this amount represent less than 18% of the Player’s claims.
46. The Claimant states that the Respondent had contacted the Player “without informing his
lawyers, the day he was flying back to Paris (France) after having prematurely terminated his
contract with just cause, and ensuring him they were acting in good faith and they wanted
to anticipated him part of their dues”.
47. In the view of the Claimant, it “remains obvious that by not involving the Player’s lawyers (of
whom the Club was well-aware), the Club had clear all the time it was aiming at abusing the
Player by misleading him into believing he was not renouncing to the full contract he knew it
had already been claimed in his name before FIFA by the underwritten, all that while the
Player is not a lawyer and not even can comprehend in English the extent of contractual
provisions alike and while the Respondent was obviously assisted by its legal counsels”.
48. The Claimant further submits that, in his view “there is no other plausible explanation as to
why would the Claimant have renounced to 82% of the dues he was claiming in FIFA”.
49. The Claimant refers to Article 18 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (“SCO”), which states that
“a contract has to be interpreted in accordance with the common intention of the parties
and, if such common intention cannot be established, in accordance with the principle of
good faith, which entails that the contract has to be given the meaning that any objective
third person would give it in good faith”.
50. In the view of the Claimant, “any objective third person would understand the phrase “with
the exception of sums claimed before the Dispute Resolution Chamber FIFA case ref Nr. FPSD2161” as encompassing all sums claimed by the Player as detailed in his statements of claim”
51. The Claimant submits that “any waiver by the employee at the time of entering into an
allegedly legitimate termination agreement is completely forbidden under Swiss law” and
refers to art. 341 SCO.
“Art. 341:
For the period of the employment relationship and for one month after its end, the employee
may not waive claims arising from mandatory provisions of law or the mandatory provisions
of a collective employment contract”
Page 9
REF FPSD-2161
52. Thus, the Claimant states that the Settlement is null and void for being in contravention of
Article 21 of the SCO. Such article provides that:
“Where there is a clear discrepancy between performance and consideration under a contract
concluded as a result of one party’s exploitation of the other’s straitened circumstances,
inexperience or thoughtlessness, the person suffering damage may declare within one year
that he will not honor the contract and demand restitution of any performance already
made.”
f. Final comments of the Respondent
53. Following the Claimant’s remarks on the Settlement, the FIFA general secretariat invited the
Respondent to file its final comments.
54. The Respondent reiterated that the Claimant received the full amount of EUR 308,986
through multiple payments. Thus, in the Respondent’s view, the Claimant is entitled only for
the amount of EUR 253,014.
55. The Respondent states that the parties mutually agreed to terminate the employment contract
effective on 26 May, 2021 and “this Mutual Termination Agreement has met the basic
elements and principles required for an agreement to be legally enforceable”.
56. The Respondent submits that as “this case is still a running case before FIFA DRC that is why
we excluded from the mutual agreement because the Claimant and the Respondent did not
agree with the exact amount regarding the Signing fee”.
57. Al Ahli requests that the FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber:
“1. Accept partially the request of the Claimant regarding the Signing fee by ordaining the
Respondent to pay only EUR 253,014.00 which represent the rest of the Advance payment
(Signing fee).
2. Reject the request of the claimant regarding the termination of the contract without just
cause.
3. Said that the contract between the club and the player was terminated amicably with a
compensation of 330,000 Euro which was paid by the Respondent.
4. Reject the request of the claimant regarding the payment of the legal fee and cost”.
Page 10
REF FPSD-2161
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
58. 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 26 March 2021 and submitted for decision
on 3 November 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
59. 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 French player and a
Saudi club.
60. 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 26 March 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
61. 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
62. 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
Page 11
REF FPSD-2161
63. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that it is undisputed that the Claimant terminated the Contract on
1 May 2021 and that a settlement agreement had been signed. Moreover, the Chamber
noted that the parties strongly disputed the validity of the Settlement.
64. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to answer the following points:
-
Is the Settlement valid and enforceable between the parties?
Depending on the above, what consequences should arise?
65. Thus, the Chamber proceeded to assess the aforementioned points.
i)
Is the Settlement valid and enforceable between the parties?
66. As summarised above, the Chamber observed that the parties indeed signed the Settlement
on 26 May 2021. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Respondent owed the amount of
EUR 824,500 as outstanding salaries and the Contract’s residual value at the time of
termination was EUR 525,000. Hence, the Chamber noted that by signing the Settlement the
Claimant has made a waiver of two different concepts (a) of salaries already owed for work
already performed and (b) of compensation for termination of the contract.
67. For completeness, the Chamber referred to the wording of the Settlement, in particular art.
2 of the Settlement which states:
“Based on that the Parties agree an overall payment of an amount of EUR 330,000 net as
outstanding remuneration and as compensation for the early termination of the employment
agreement this amount shall be paid by the Club to the player as follows:
SAR 229,500 net which represent the equivalent of EUR 50,000 paid on 26 May 2021 by
Check drawn on Riyad Bank Check Number:00003354
EUR 280,000 net on 05 June 2021 and shall be paid to the player on his bank account as
follows: (…)”
68. In this regard, the Chamber wished that the core of the matter regards the waiver contained
in the cited provision. As such, the members of the Chamber recalled the DRC and the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (“The CAS”) jurisprudence, the following points can be made.
69. Firstly, waiving of salary for work already performed cannot be validly made under Swiss law
for one month following the termination of the labour relationship. This derives from the
following reasoning:
Page 12
REF FPSD-2161
a. Art. 341 SCO prevents the employee to waive, throughout the duration of the contract
and within a month following the (effective) end of the contractual relationship, claims
arising from mandatory provisions of the law or of a collective agreement;
b. Art. 361 SCO lists the absolutely mandatory provisions (i.e. cannot be derogated from
neither to the detriment of the employer or employee);
c. Art. 362 SCO lists the relative mandatory provisions (i.e. protects the employee only as
the provisions listed therein cannot be derogated from to the detriment of the latter);
d. Art. 20 par. 1 SCO rules that a contract (or clause) is null and void if its terms are
unlawful;
e. Parties may agree on the reduction in pay for the future; but not for work already done
for the period established under art. 341 SCO.
70. Based on the foregoing, the DRC underlined that an agreement concluded during the term
set in art. 341 SCO whereby the employee waives his rights to financial compensation in the
event that the employer had terminated the employment agreement without just cause (or
cause the employee to terminate it with just cause) is in principle null and void. Nevertheless,
a settlement agreement for the compensation payable in light of the termination can be
concluded between the parties, but such agreement is regarded as valid provided that there
is an appropriate equivalence between the parties' reciprocal concessions. Should the
termination be unbalanced, then art. 341 SCO would apply and render this clause of the
agreement null and void.
71. Based on the above, the Chamber was comfortable on the determination that the Settlement
agreement shall be rendered partially null and void to the extent that the outstanding salaries,
due until date of termination (i.e. 1 May 2021) cannot be waived and thus the Claimant could
not validly renounce to them.
72. In support of this position, the Chamber highlighted that: (a) the Settlement Agreement was
signed on 26 May 2021, hence within the one-month period established under Swiss law for
the termination of the contract occurred on 1 May 2021; and (b) Art. 20 SCO supports the
position of partially annulling a clause that contravenes the mandatory provisions of law.
73. In continuation, the Chamber observed that as to the salaries due after the signature of the
Settlement (i.e. the residual value), referred in the art. 2 of the Settlement as “compensation
for early termination”, the latter could upheld as long as it was found to be fair and equitable.
74. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the residual value of the Contract at the time of
termination was EUR 525,000 and the parties had agreed the compensation amount of EUR
330,000. From the outset this could not be found to be a disproportionate relinquishment
on the side of the Claimant insofar as the transaction made by the Claimant allowed him to
Page 13
REF FPSD-2161
stop rendering his services, return to his home country and to his parent club, play in one of
the top-5 leagues in Europe, leaving a mid-level club in Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, the
Respondent was no longer enjoying the player’s services but also not paying his salary for the
remaining term of the Contract. The DRC found these two mutual reciprocal concessions
balanced, moreover considering that the Player was to receive his salaries again from his
parent club.
75. Thus, the DRC deemed that the Settlement shall be upheld regarding the compensation for
early termination as it was found reasonable and proportionate.
76. For all the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber confirmed that the Settlement is
declared partially null and void in relation to the outstanding salaries.
ii. Consequences
77. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of declaring the Settlement partially null and void.
78. The Chamber observed that the Claimant was entitled to his earnings until the date of
termination to the amount of EUR 824,500. Moreover, the Chamber observed from the
evidence on file that the Respondent had demonstrated having paid EUR 495,852.
79. Therefore, the Claimant would still be entitled to the balance of EUR 328,648 as outstanding
remuneration.
80. 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. EUR 328,648.
81. 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 amounts as from the date of termination, as per the Claimant’s
request, until the date of effective payment.
82. Having stated the above, the Chamber moved to the matter of compensation as requested
by the Claimant. In this regard, the Chamber noted that as per the terms of the Settlement,
the Claimant shall be paid the amount of EUR 330,000 in consideration of “compensation
for early termination”, which as per the previous consideration was deemed to be fair and
reasonable.
83. Furthermore, the DRC observed that the Respondent had provided evidence of having paid
this amount of EUR 330,000 as agreed. Hence, there is no further amount to be awarded as
compensation and the Respondent discharged its obligation as contractually agreed.
Page 14
REF FPSD-2161
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
84. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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.
85. 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.
86. 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
87. 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.
88. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-2161
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Niang Mbaye Hamdy, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Al Ahli FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
-
EUR 328,648 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2021 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. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), 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. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter 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 16
REF FPSD-2161
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 17