Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17613
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Mounir Moknia
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Mounir Moknia, Morocco
Represented by Fahmi Belhadj Mohamed
RESPONDENT:
Shabab Al Ghar, Libya
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17613
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Moroccan player Mounir Moknia (hereinafter: the Claimant or
the Player) and the Libyan club Shabab Al Ghar (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 29 September
2024 until the end of the season 2024-2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant USD
7,500 upon the signature of the Contract, USD 3,750 at the start of the return phase and
USD 3,750 at the end of the season.
3.
On 21 November 2024, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the Libyan
Football Federation in order to put the Respondent in default:
“Dear president of al-ghar [sic] club via the General Secretary of lybian [sic] football federation.
You are fully aware that I'm under contract with the club since 29 September 2024. According
to the contract you must pay me 7500 USD upon the signature of the contract which represents
50% of the contractual value.
Unfortunately you didn't respect your contractual obligations and consequently I summon you
to pay me the outstanding amount of 7500 USD with 15 days otherwise I will have no option
than to terminate the contract unilaterally for just cause according to article 14 bis RSTP.”
4.
On 6 December 2024, the Claimant sent the following correspondence to the Libyan
Football Federation in order to terminate the Contract with the Respondent:
“Dear president of al-ghar [sic] club, via the General Secretary of libyan [sic] football federation.
Ivremind [sic] you that I'm under contract with the club since 29 September 2024. According to
the contract, you must pay me 7500 USD upon the signature of the contract, which represents
50% of the contractual value. Unfortunately, you didn't respect your contractual obligations and
consequently sent you on 21 November 2024 a formal default notice summoning your club to
pay me the outstanding amount of 7500 USD within 15 days.
Unfortunately, no reaction and no payment were made from your side. Thus, i [sic] have no
other option than to inform you that i [sic] hereby terminate the contract unilaterally for just
cause according to article 14 bis RSTP. Best regards”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 28 December 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17613
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
According to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with just cause pursuant to article
14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
7.
In addition, the Player noted that he corresponded with the Libyan Football Federation
rather than with the Club as he was unable to find the email address of the Club.
8.
The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
-
USD 7,500 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% p.a. as from 21 November
2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 7,500 as compensation for the breach of the Contract, plus 5% p.a. as
from the date of the decision until the date of effective payment;
-
Additional compensation amounting to USD 9,000, plus 5% p.a. as from the
date of the decision until the date of effective payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 28 December 2024 and submitted for decision
on 27 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the January 2025 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.
11. 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 (January 2025 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 Moroccan player
and a Libyan club.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17613
12. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
13. 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
14. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
15. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination of the Contract by the
Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the
Respondent as per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
16. 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, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
17. 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).
18. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the first instalment of the Contract in the amount of USD 7,500.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17613
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of
sending a correspondence to the Libyan Football Federation on 21 November 2024 in order
to put the Respondent in default and on 6 December 2024 in order to terminate the
Contract with the Respondent.
19. Considering the wording of art. 14bis par. 2 of the Regulations and the fact that the
Claimant’s salary was not due on a monthly basis, the Chamber calculated the pro-rata
value of the Player’s remuneration and concluded that the amount claimed as outstanding
remuneration, i.e. USD 7,500, corresponded to approximately four and a half monthly
salaries.
20. 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, the Chamber observed that the Respondent failed to provide
evidence to prove the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant.
21. In this context, the Chamber was of the opinion that, in the absence of evidence that the
Respondent had been duly notified of the Claimant’s correspondence dated 21 November
2024, the prerequisites of article 14bis of the Regulations were not met. In this regard, the
Chamber noted that the Claimant had notified the Libyan Football Federation instead of
the Club and that he had not provided evidence demonstrating that he could not have
reasonably found the Club’s email address for its notification.
22. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that, in accordance with
its well-established jurisprudence, only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain
severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are
objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order to ensure the
fulfilment of the contractual duties by the counterparty, such measures must be taken
before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
23. On account of the aforementioned principle, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant
terminated the Contract with just cause based on article 14 of the Regulations as the
Respondent had repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its
contractual obligations towards the Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber determined that
the fundamental terms and conditions which formed the basis of the Contract were no
longer respected by the Respondent, as the pro-rata value of the remuneration owed to
the Player corresponded to approximately four and a half monthly salaries.
24. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, in the absence of evidence that the Respondent
had been duly notified of the Claimant’s correspondence dated 6 December 2024, the
Claimant terminated the Contract by lodging his claim before FIFA on 28 December 2024.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17613
ii. Consequences
25. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
26. 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 the first
instalment of the Contract, amounting to USD 7,500.
27. 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 amount
which was outstanding under the Contract at the moment of its termination, i.e. USD 7,500.
28. 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 as from 21 November 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
29. 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, taking into account the damage suffered,
according to the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts and
circumstances of each case and with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned.
30. 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.
31. 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. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the Player by the Club shall
be equal to the residual value of the Contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
Player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
32. 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17613
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 7,500 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
33. 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.
34. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the Contract, hence did not mitigate his damages.
35. The Chamber then referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in
case a player did not sign any new contract following the termination of their previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
36. 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 7,500 to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
37. 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 from 27 February 2025 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
38. 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.
39. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17613
40. 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. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
41. 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.
42. 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
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17613
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mounir Moknia, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Shabab Al Ghar, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 7,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 November
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 7,500 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27
February 2025 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. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17613
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