Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16169
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Stephane
Mukala Wa Mukala Petit Mouko
BY:
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia)
CLAIMANT:
Stephane Mukala Wa Mukala Petit Mouko, Congo DR
Represented by Renaud Duchene
RESPONDENT:
CSC 1599 Selimbar, Romania
Represented by Dan Idita
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16169
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 5 August 2022, the Congolese player Stephane Mukala Wa Mukala Petit Mouko
(hereinafter: the Claimant or the Player) and the Romanian club CSC 1599 Selimbar
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties,
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 21 September
2022 until 31 May 2024.
2.
According to the information available in TMS, on 21 September 2022, the parties
terminated the Contract.
3.
Also on 21 September 2022, the parties concluded a Sports Activity Contract (hereinafter:
Sports Activity Contract) valid as from the aforementioned date until 31 May 2024.
4.
The Sports Activity Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
”3.1. The Club undertakes to pay the player the net amount of 14,000 Lei/month (€2,800) on
the 20th of the following month for the previous month.”
5.
On 21 September 2022, the parties concluded an Annex No. 1 to the Sports Activity
Contract (hereinafter: the Annex). Article 1 of the Annex stipulated (quoted verbatim):
“Art. 1 Contract no. 829/21.09.2022 will be valid and legally effective only from the date of
obtaining the work permit from the Sibiu Immigration Office by the player (this obligation being
fully incumbent on the player) and thereafter the date of acceptance and registration of the
contract by the FRF. If the player does not obtain the work permit in Romania by 10.10.2022, the
contract it shall not be binding on either party and shall be deemed null and void without either
party seeking damages of any kind from the other.”
6.
The parties provided an invoice to a company named MySportsCom dated 1 August 2022
for the amount of EUR 2,000. The concept included therein reads: “Service for transfer of
Mukala Wa Mukala Muoko Stephane to CSC 1599 Selimbar.”
7.
The parties provided a partially translated Tour Operator Invoice dated 31 October 2022,
addressed and billed to the Club.
8.
On 15 August 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested the amount
of EUR 61,600 net for the total value of the Sports Activity Contract, as well as EUR 3,000
for flight tickets (hereinafter: the First Default Notice).
9.
In the First Default Notice, the Claimant stated, inter alia, that:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16169
“(…) The Player has been told, one and half month after the signature of the Contract and quite
three months(!) after his arrival at the Club that he had to go home, without clear explanation,
only by intermediary persons translating him because he DOES NOT understand English (…)
(…) As indicated in the Player’s contract, the Player has a Residence Permit (Nr 475158439 valid
until 30.11.26). Romania, like Belgium, country from where the Player is coming from, are
members of the European Union and if the Player can play and work in Belgium, he is able to
play in Romania.
The Player was finally obliged, despite many protests, to live many months, there without any
salary or prime(s), in a kind of slavery-system which is contrarily to the European Convention of
Human Rights (…)
The Player’s Contract foresees that the player was entitled to receive a net monthly salary of
14.000 lei or converted to 2.800 euros nets on this time. From September 2021 to May 2024, the
total value of the overdue payable may be calculated as follows:
2.800 euros x 10 months (September to June) for the season 2022/2023: 28.000 euros nets
2.800 euros x 11 months (July to May) for the season 2023/2024: 30.800 euros nets
Following FIFA Regulations (Preliminary point 9 of FIFA RSTP Regulations, a sporting season is
during 12 months and not 11 months):
Season: a consecutive 12-month period fixed by an association during which its official
competitions, such as national league championships and national cup competitions, occur.
By ending the Player’s contract on 31 May 2024, the Club does not respect FIFA regulations.
Consequently, the month of June 2024 is also due to the Player, adding 2.800 euros nets as
salary. In the salary, was also foreseen to pay the flight tickets of the Player:
On the top of this, three round-trip air tickets were foreseen per year.
The value of such ticket is around 500,00 euros minimum (Appendix Nr 3) x3 (number by year
or season) X2 (two years or seasons)
The Club will oppose the fact that the Player finally never had to use these tickets but the Player
was obliged to come to the club and to take a flight to come back the 27 October 2022 at home
on its own costs and it is clearly a part of his ‘global’ fixed salary and not a variable remuneration
(primes,…).
This letter could be considered as an official warning in accordance with article 12bis of RSTP
FIFA Regulations (November 2022 edition or any other applicable version) to pay WITHOUT ANY
DELAY the following amounts:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16169
➔ 61.600,00 (sixty-one thousand six hundred) euros nets (without any deduction tax or banking
fees) on the date of the present letter;
➔ 3.000,00 euros nets of flight tickets
Total overdue payables: 64.600 (sixty-four thousand six hundred) euros nets
These amounts are MINIMUM guaranteed amounts.
For the sake of clarity, the Player did not speak neither Romanian neither English and he
never receives a translated version of his Player’s contract, only unclear information by
intermediary persons.”
10. On 20 August 2024, the Respondent replied to the First Default Notice stating, inter alia,
that:
-
According to the Annex, the Sports Activity Contract will only produce legal effects if the
Player obtained his work permit by 10 October 2022. The Club said that it offered all the
support and, on several occasions, accompanied the Player to the Immigration Office
but the Player ultimately failed to obtain the permit.
-
Regarding the fact that the Claimant did not understand English and the Respondent did
not communicate a copy of the contract in his language, the Respondent said that the
Player never requested it, and he was represented by an intermediary, to whom the
Respondent allegedly paid a commission to serve as broker between the Respondent
and the Claimant. Additionally, the Respondent argued that the Claimant never
mentioned that the terms of the contract were unclear.
-
Regarding the Player’s statement that he had a residence permit in Belgium, the Club
stated that he had a temporary residence in Belgium, which did not make him a
European citizen and did not give him the right to work in another European country
without obtaining a work permit in that country.
-
In response to the Claimant’s argument that the Respondent failed to comply with its
contractual obligations when the Claimant broke his hand, the Club stated that it
covered all medical costs and asked the Claimant to provide documentary proof of
having paid the medical expenses because according to the Respondent, the Claimant
did not have to pay anything.
-
With regard to the Claimant‘s argument that he was forced to leave the country, the
Respondent mentioned that he was forced to leave the country because he failed to
obtain the work permit, and the 3 months he was allowed to stay in the country had
passed. The Respondent also mentioned the Claimant’s allegation that he had to cover
the cost of the flight ticket. In this respect, the Respondent submitted an invoice in order
to prove that the Respondent had paid for the Player’s return flight ticket.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16169
11. On 19 September 204, the Claimant sent a second notice to the Respondent by email,
arguing that the Club’s response was false and incomplete.
12. On 20 September 2024, the Respondent replied to the second notice asking the Claimant
which information was false and incomplete.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 20 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
14. In his claim, the Claimant argued that he did not give his consent to the Annex as he does
not speak English and no translation was provided by the Respondent.
15. Additionally, the Claimant argued that the paragraph included in the Annex referring to his
obligation to obtain the work permit was unclear and incomplete. Moreover, the Claimant
stated that this obligation was illegal according to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players and the relevant jurisprudence.
16. With regard to his temporary work permit, the Claimant argued that work permits for nonEU nationals allow them to work in countries other than the country that issued the permit.
17. The Claimant stated that he was treated in scandalous human conditions during his three
months in Sibiu, being left with no food, money or any accommodation, which according
to the Claimant was an infringement of article 5 of the EU Charter of Human Rights
regarding slavery and forced labour.
18. In this sense, the Claimant provided a WhatsApp conversation with an individual the
Claimant maintained was an intermediary called Thierry. According to the Claimant, the
conversation entailed the Claimant demanding his payment, food and accommodation to
this person.
19. Regarding the alleged breach of contract by the Respondent, the Claimant held that he is
entitled to receive compensation which he summarized as follows:
“(…) 61.600,00 (sixty-one thousand six hundred) euros nets [sic] (without any deduction tax
or banking fees) on the date of the present letter;
3.000,00 euros nets [sic]of flight tickets
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16169
Total: 64.600 (sixty-four thousand six hundred) euros nets [sic].
If for any reasons, the Player must pay taxes from his resident country (Belgium) on this
amount, the difference will be taken in charge by SELIMBAR, afterwards, by sending the official
document to the Club by the Player due to the fact the salary indicated in the Player’s Contract
is net.
Moreover, the interest rate of 5% p.a. applicable by FIFA must be applied to this total amount
(…)”
20. Consequently, the Claimant requested (quoted verbatim):
“The FIFA DRC of the FIFA Football Tribunal is competent to handle the present case.
FIFA Regulations (RSTP, Procedural,…) are applicable and subsidiarily Swiss Law to the present
case.
SELIMBAR will be required by FIFA DRC to pay, without supplementary delay, the total NET
amount of 64.600,00 (sixty-four thousand six hundred) euros to the Player (meaning that if taxes
are a posterior applicable, SELIMBAR will take them in charge). SELIMBAR will be required by
FIFA DRC to pay an interest rate of 5% p.a. on the abovementioned amount since the date of
beginning of the Player’s Agreement, 21 September 2022, until the date of effective and definitive
payment on the bank account indicated on the FIFA Bank registration form (Appendix 14).”
b. Position of the Respondent
21. In its reply, the Respondent stated that, on 4 August 2022, the Claimant, together with the
company MySportscom Agency, entered into a contractual relationship with the
Respondent.
22. The Respondent stated that on 5 August 2022, the parties concluded the Contract.
23. According to the Respondent, the contract was mutually terminated on 21 September 2022
and the Claimant stated that he did not have any financial claim for the period between 5
August 2022 and 21 September 2022.
24. According to the Respondent, on 21 September 2022, the parties concluded the Sports
Activity Contract under the nomenclature 829 /21.09.2022 together with the Annex 1.
25. According to the Respondent, on 27 October 2022, the Claimant left Romania with a plane
ticket covered by the Respondent.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16169
26. The Respondent explained that the Claimant had to leave because on 4 November 2022,
the Claimant would have stayed 3 months in Romania without a work permit. Additionally,
according to the Respondent, the Claimant did not express any interest in returning to
complete his contract.
27. The Respondent stated that the Claimant had a student visa that did not allow him to work
in another country of the European Union.
28. The Respondent explained that the Club’s staff communicated with the Claimant in English,
and he never complained or requested a French translator.
29. The Respondent acknowledged the Claimant’s hand injury and stated that it covered all the
costs.
30. According to the Respondent, it made efforts to communicate with the immigration office
to know the documents needed to obtain the work permit for the Claimant. However,
according to the Respondent, the immigration office only communicates this to the
applicant.
31. Lastly, the Respondent rejected the slavery allegations made by the Claimant.
32. Consequently, the Respondent requested that the Claimant’s claim be rejected.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16169
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
33. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 20 September 2024 and submitted
for decision on 19 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 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.
34. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations) (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 Congolese player and a Romanian club.
35. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
36. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
37. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16169
38. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the validity of the Sports Activity Contract and the Annex.
39. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine the validity
of the aforementioned documents and whether the Respondent breached them.
a) Were the Sports Activity Contract and the Annex concluded between the parties
valid and binding?
40. First, the Single Judge noted that this dispute pertains exclusively to the Sports Activity
Contract and the Annex, as the Player does not base any of his claims on the Contract,
which the parties terminated by mutual consent on 21 September 2022. However, the
Respondent held that the Sports Activity Contract was subject to the Claimant successfully
obtaining his work permit in Romania.
41. In this sense, the Single Judge noted the Respondent’s argument that the aforementioned
condition was included in the Annex and the Claimant accepted it because, according to
the Club, the permit the Claimant possessed did not give him the right to work in Romania
under Romanian law.
42. The Single Judge noted that the Claimant argued that he did not give his consent to the
Annex because the Club did not provide him an appropriate translation of the Annex in
French and that his permit already gave him the right to work as an EU National, and, in
any event this condition under the Annex was contrary to article 18.par.4 of the
Regulations.
43. Taking into account the foregoing, the Single Judge recalled the content of the Annex, which
stipulates that:
“Art. 1 Contract no. 829/21.09.2022 will be valid and legally effective only from the date of
obtaining the work permit from the Sibiu Immigration Office by the player (this obligation being
fully incumbent on the player) and thereafter the date of acceptance and registration of the
contract by the FRF. If the player does not obtain the work permit in Romania by 10.10.2022, the
contract it shall not be binding on either party and shall be deemed null and void without either
party seeking damages of any kind from the other.”
44. The Single Judge noted that, from the analysis of the wording of the Annex, if the Claimant
failed to obtain the work permit, the Sports Activity Contract was to be considered null and
void.
45. In this regard, the Single Judge underscored that in line with the content of article 18 par.4
of the Regulations, as well as the jurisprudence of FIFA, the validity of an employment
contract cannot be made conditional upon the execution of (administrative) formalities,
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16169
such as, but not limited to, the player obtaining a work permit. As the club is supposedly
interested in acquiring the rights of the player and in benefiting from his services, it is also
expected to act accordingly and execute the administrative formalities with a view to
obtaining a work permit. Consequently, alleged absence of the work permit is irrelevant in
determining if the contract was a valid and binding document.
46. Based on the above, the Single Judge decided to reject the Respondent's objection to the
validity of the Sports Activity Contract and deemed that it was valid and binding between
the parties.
b) Was the Sports Activity Contract terminated by the Respondent without just
cause?
47. Having established the foregoing, the Single Judge moved to examine the circumstances
surrounding the alleged breach of contract by the Respondent.
48. The Single Judge noted that the Claimant claimed he is entitled to receive the residual value
of the Sports Activity Contract, amounting to EUR 61,600 net and EUR 3,000 for the flight
tickets.
49. The Single Judge also noted the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant left Romania on
27 October 2022 with the flight ticket covered by the Club and did not express his interest
in continuing the employment relationship.
50. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that, based on the evidence on file, the tour operator
invoice dated 31 October 2022 was billed and addressed to the Respondent. Therefore, the
Single Judge was satisfied that the Respondent had covered the cost of the flight tickets.
51. The Single Judge also pointed out that the departure date of the Claimant from Romania,
i.e. 27 October 2022, remained undisputed.
52. In this context, the Single Judge noted that (i) the Claimant left Romania on 27 October
2022; (ii) there was no evidence of a termination agreement concerning the Sports Activity
Contract; (iii) there is no evidence of any communication between the Club and the
Claimant related to possible termination of the Sports Activity Contract prior to 27 October
2022, nor is there any evidence of undue pressure from either party for early termination
of that agreement; (iv) there is no evidence of any communication between the Club and
the Claimant from the moment the latter left Romania in order to return to his country of
residence, nor is there any evidence to suggest an attempt from either party to enforce the
Sports Activity Contract thereafter until the date of the First Default Notice on 15 August
2024, i.e. almost 22 months after the Claimant left Romania.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16169
53. Consequently, the Single Judge determined that, although the Sports Activity Contract was
valid and binding between the parties, there was a mutual loss of interest from both
parties, as there is no evidence that either of the parties did anything to enforce its terms.
54. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that there was no breach of contract by the
Respondent but rather a mutual departure on 27 October 2022.
c) What are the consequences?
55. Having established the above, the Single Judge turned to the consequences of the
foregoing and observed, first of all, that the outstanding remuneration at the time of the
parties’ mutual departure from the Sports Activity Contract amounts to EUR 3,278.70 net,
corresponding to the proportionate period from 21 September 2022 to 27 October 2022.
56. Furthermore, the Single Judge found that, as the parties were found to have mutually
departed from the employment relationship, no compensation for breach of contract was
warranted.
57. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment the employment relationship
ended, i.e. 3,278.70, corresponding to the proportionate period from 21 September 2022
to 27 October 2022.
58. In addition, taking into consideration the constant practice of the Football Tribunal in this
regard, as well as the Claimant’s specific request for relief, the Single Judge decided to
award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
- EUR 3,278.70 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 840 net as from 21 October 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,438.70 net as from 27 October 2022 until the
date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
59. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16169
60. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
61. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
62. 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.
63. The Single Judge 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
64. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
65. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
66. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16169
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Stephane Mukala Wa Mukala Petit Mouko, is partially accepted
2.
The Respondent, CSC 1599 Selimbar, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 3,278.70 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 840 net as from 21 October 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,438.70 net as from 27 October 2022 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. 14
REF. FPSD-16169
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 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. 15