Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3130
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 March 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Abdulrahim
Abdulrahman Abdulrahim Mukim Ahli
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Abdulrahim Abdulrahman Abdulrahim Mukim Ahli, United Arab Emirates
Represented by Salvatore Civale
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
FK Spartaks, Latvia
Represented by Georgi Gradev and Marton Kiss
Page 2
REF FPSD-3130
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 10 January 2020, the Emirian player Abdulrahim Abdulrahman Abdulrahim Mukim Ahli
(hereinafter: the player), and the Latvian club, (hereinafter: the club) concluded an
employment contract valid from 15 January 2020 until 15 November 2022.
2.
Pursuant to article 3.1 of the contract, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR
1,004 per month.
3.
Additionally, on 10 January 2020, the parties signed an annex (hereinafter: Annexe 1) to the
contract, which stipulated the following:
“The Club shall reimburse to the Player the following expenses and pay the following
performance bonus:
Reimbursement for the Player's living expenses.
• € 1'300 monthly from 15 March until 15 November 2020
• € 1'500 monthly from 15 March until 15 November 2021
• € 1'700 monthly from 15 March until 15 November 2022
Incentives for the Player's performances and achievements:
a. € 2'000 for any UEFA Champions League game in the starting lineup
b. € 1'000 for any UEFA Europa League game in the starting lineup
c. € 500 for any UEFA Europa Conference League game in the starting lineup
d. the Player participates to the team collective bonuses for victories & season achievements”
4.
On 1 May 2020, the player and club signed another annex to contract by means of which the
parties agreed to increase the basic salary from EUR 1,004 to EUR 1,076.
5.
On 7 March 2021, the club concluded a loan agreement with FC Noah Jurmala, for the loan
of the Player from 7 March to 31 December 2021, art. 7 of the agreement indicated that the
club is responsible for the salary of the player for the period of the loan agreement.
6.
Clause 6.4 of the contract stipulates the following:
“The Parties hereby agree that in case of an early termination of the Contract by the Player
(on its own initiative), without a valid reason [...], the Football Player shall pay the
compensation for unilateral termination in the amount of EUR 2 000 000 (net) within two
months from such termination (liquidated damages). The amount of compensation does not
include all damages which the Club could suffer following unilateral termination. The
payment of such compensation does not release the Football Player and his new club from
sporting sanctions, provided by FIFA and LFF regulations.”
7.
According to the player, the club failed to comply with its contractual financial obligations.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3130
8.
The player indicated that it had repeatedly asked the club to “remedy its default by fulfilling
its financial obligations, paying the overdues payable to him and, in particular, immediately
interrupt the Club's abusive conduct towards him”
9.
According to the player by November 2020, the club owed him the total amount of EUR
11,685.31, corresponding to the following:
- EUR 270,17 as partial missing salary of January 2020;
- EUR 270,17 as partial missing salary of February 2020;
- EUR 630,51 as partial missing salary of March 2020;
- EUR 319,27 as partial missing salary of April 2020;
- EUR 342,17 as partial missing salary of May 2020;
- EUR 342,17 as partial missing salary of June 2020;
- EUR 342,17 as partial missing salary of July 2020;
- EUR 342,17 as partial missing salary of August 2020;
- EUR 342,17 as partial missing salary of September 2020;
- EUR 342,17 as partial missing salary of October 2020;
- EUR 342,17 as partial missing salary of November 2020; and
- living expenses of EUR 1,300 monthly for the period June - November 2020, in the amount
of EUR 7,800
10. Moreover, the player indicated that the club removed him from the first team and did not
allow him to train with the team, allegedly “with the goal to make pressure on him and
convince to sign a resignation letter.”
11. Furthermore, in October 2020 the player indicated that the club requested that he sign a
termination agreement in exchange for the possibility to play and gain minutes on the pitch.
12. On 24 October 2020, the player was allegedly pressured by the club to sign a termination
agreement on the basis of which he had to waive his salary and other benefits, ultimately
terminating the employment relationship between the player and the club on 30 November
2020.
13. The player has indicated that he never received a duly signed copy of the termination
agreement from the club, even after numerous requests.
14. According to the player, the club requested money from him in order to provide a copy of
the termination agreement.
15. The player indicated that the club refused to apply for the renewal of his working permit
which expired on 19 February 2021.
Page 4
REF FPSD-3130
16. However, the player accepted to sign a loan agreement with FC Noah Jurmala, whose license
to play in the Latvia national league was not granted. According to the player it had no choice
to accept the loan to FC Noah Jurmala as “he did not have a copy of the termination
agreement.”
17. On 27 March 2021 the player terminated the contract with the club.
18. On 28 March 2021, the player travelled back to the United Arab Emirates via Frankfurt where
he was allegedly detained by the German Border Police for two hours due to the lack of a
valid working visa.
19. On 8 April 2021, the player received an email from the club indicating that he had no just
cause to terminate the contract.
20. On 15 April 2021, following the termination of his contract with the club, as well as the
cancellation of the license of the FC NOAH, the player sent a unilateral termination notice to
FC Noah, i.e. the loan club.
21. According to the player, FC Noah “showed no interests in his sporting services and proposed
to him to sign a settlement termination agreement.”
22. After the unilateral termination of the contract, the player remains unemployed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
23. On 23 July 2021, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
a.
Position of the Player
24. The requests for relief of the player, were the following:
(a) the club pay the player the overdues in the amount of EUR 15,989.31 net, calculated as
follows:
- EUR 270.17 as partial missing salary of January 2020;
- EUR 270.17 as partial missing salary of February 2020;
- EUR 630.51 as partial missing salary of March 2020;
- EUR 319.27 as partial missing salary of April 2020;
- EUR 342.17 as partial missing salary of May 2020;
- EUR 1,642.17 - (EUR 342,17 partial missing salary of June 2020, plus living expenses of
EUR 1,300)
- EUR 1,642.17 – (EUR 342,17 partial missing salary of July 2020, plus living expenses of
EUR 1,300)
Page 5
REF FPSD-3130
- EUR 1,642.17 – (EUR 342,17 partial missing salary of August 2020, plus living expenses
of EUR 1,300)
- EUR 1,642.17– (EUR 342,17 partial missing salary of September 2020, plus living
expenses of EUR1,300;
- EUR 1,642.17- (EUR 342,17 as partial missing salary of October 2020, plus living
expenses of EUR 1,300);
- EUR 1,642.17- (EUR 342,17 as partial missing salary of November 2020, plus living
expenses of EUR 1,300)
- EUR 1,076 - salary of December 2020;
- EUR 1,076 - salary of January 2021;
- EUR 1,076 - salary of February 2021; and
- EUR 1,076 - salary of March 2021.
(b) order the club to pay the player the compensation for breach of contract in the amount
of EUR 44,920 net;
(c) order the club to pay an interest of 5% per annum on each of the above amounts due
to the player;
(d) apply the measures and sporting sanctions i.e. namely the ban of two transfer windows.
b.
Position of the club and counterclaim
25. According to the club it is undisputed that the player terminated the employment relationship
however the player mentioned contractual breaches by the club which was never mentioned
in the termination notice.
26. In this context the club indicated that “the DRC should answer whether the Player had a just
cause to terminate the contract strictly based on the rounds invoked by him in the termination
notice and should disregard any other circumstances, which the Player was aware of at the
time of termination but did not invoke. Arguments raised ex post facto should not be heard
by the DRC.”
27. The club indicated that it would only comment on the player’s allegations put forward in the
termination notice.
28. According to the club, the Player’s salary was a gross value as the contract clearly stipulates
that the Club had a statutory duty to deduct taxes from the Player’s wages.
29. Furthermore, the club argued that the signing of Annex 3 on 1 August 2020, declared Annex
1 null and void, allegedly the signature date of 11 January 2020 is wrong and that the Player
cannot “derive any right of such a mistake, contrary to good faith.” Therefore, the club has
indicated that as of August 2020, the club had no obligation to the player in relation to
Annexe 1.
Page 6
REF FPSD-3130
30. In this context, the club submitted, the document, referred to in its reply as Annex 3.
31. Moreover, the club argued that the March salary did not mature on the termination date.
32. The club argued that the Player had failed to meet the second requirement of art. 14bis RSTP,
as he never placed the Club in default and granted it 15 days deadline to comply. Accordingly,
the Player cannot validly claim that he had just cause to terminate the contract in accordance
with art.14 or 14bis.
33. According to the club, the Player for the first time in its claim provided sufficient grounds for
him to terminate the employment relationship. However according to the club, the said
grounds was not properly raised with the club and in this regard stipulated the following:
“-
-
Club already explained that the salary was agreed to as gross.
The club also explained that Annex 3 terminated Annex 1 as of 1 August 2020. Therefore,
the club did not owe the player any further payments under Annex 1.
The player has never asked for the provision of evidence of payment of taxes. There's no
contractual obligation of the club either.
The club has never removed the player from any team training for whatever reason. The
player no such protests until he felt the claim at FIFA
The Club has never asked the player to terminate the contract by mutual consent and to
waive his claims it also never written a draft termination agreement it's the other way
around the player and its agent requested a termination by mutual consent and provided
a draft termination agreement to the club
The Club has never provided a fake COVID-19 certificate to the player to enter Latvia.a
typographical error in the date of birth of the player does not render it fake
The club is never coerced the player to accept a loan to FC Noah. There's no such evidence
or witness statement on file proving otherwise
Finally at the termination date, the Player was employed by FC Noah who was responsible
for his visa. On the club’s request the player’s visa was extended until 31 December 2024
therefore the player was legitimately residing in Latvia“
34. In this context, the club referred to clause 6.4 of the contract which stipulates the following:
“The Parties hereby agree that in case of an early termination of the Contract by the Player
(on its own initiative), without a valid reason [...], the Football Player shall pay the
compensation for unilateral termination in the amount of EUR 2 000 000 (net) within two
months from such termination (liquidated damages). The amount of compensation does not
include all damages which the Club could suffer following unilateral termination. The
payment of such compensation does not release the Football Player and his new club from
sporting sanctions, provided by FIFA and LFF regulations.”
Page 7
REF FPSD-3130
35. According to the Club, the Player should therefor pay the Club EUR 2,000,000 net as
liquidated damages, which the Club already requested from the Player on April 14, 2021.
36. Furthermore, the Club argued “that it is entitled to claim the excess if the damage suffered
exceeds the liquidated damages amount, as in the present case.”
37. The Club further mentioned that “clause 6.4 of the contract cannot be set aside for the mere
fact that it is not reciprocal, however if the liquidated damages would be deemed excessive,
the DRC may reduce the relevant amount, but it cannot refuse to apply Clause 6.4 of the
contract.”
38. The Club respectfully requests that the DRC:
(a) dismiss all Player’s claims against the Club insofar as they are admissible.
(b) Order the Player to pay the Club compensation of EUR 2,020,982 plus interest of 5% per
annum from March 28, 2021, until the payment date
(c) Declare the Player’s new Club jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
compensation above
(d) Impose sporting sanctions on the Player based on Article 17.3RSTP
c.
Player’s reply to counterclaim
39. The player firstly indicated that the counterclaim of the club is inadmissible on the basis that
it is in violation of art. 9 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Procedural Rules, since the Club failed to
provide a completed bank form.
40. The player continued to address the, inter alia, following issues:
(a) On the amount as basic salary to be considered net
-
according to the player, “there is no reference in article 3.1.1. to the word “net” or
“gross”, and the absence of such specific reference should be interpreted in favour of
the player who signed the employment contract with the expectation to receive that
amount in a net monthly salary.
-
Furthermore, additionally it is the club’s obligation to pay taxes relating to the basic salary
(b) On the alleged cancellation of the Annex to the Contract No. AMA-2020
-
In this context, the player stipulated, “as for the Club’s Exhibits R1 and R2 and the alleged
cancellation of the Annex to the Contract No. AMA-2020, above all, the player deny the
signature of these 2 documents.”
Page 8
REF FPSD-3130
-
The player indicated that although the signature appears to be his signature, he is
however of the firm opinion that he did not have sign these papers, “in one case does
not report the stamp of the Club (as for the other documents signed between the parties)
and, in the other case, does not contain the signature of Mr. Trabucchi Marco, i.e. the
owner of the Club.” In this regard, the player Player requested that the original versions
of the documents.
(c) On the Counter-Claim and requested Compensation
-
The player reaffirmed that the counterclaim is inadmissible, as mentioned above.
-
Furthermore, the claimed compensation of more than 2,000,000 is excessive and not
proportionate, the said termination clause is not reciprocal and should therefore be
deemed invalid and non-enforceable.
-
In conclusion, the Player remarks that even if the DRC shall find him to have terminated
the employment contract without just cause (quod non!) it is in any case unquestionable
his right to receive the overdues payables afore mentioned.
41. In conclusion, the player reiterated its position as detailed in his and further mentioned the
following:
(a) On the procedural point of view:
-
Reject the Counter-Claim filed by the club as inadmissible;
(b) on the merit:
-
Reject in full the Counter- claim filed by SIA FK Spartaks;
Accept the claim of the Player and Order the Club to pay the Player the overdues in the
amount of EUR 15,989.31 net
d. Original evidence provided by the club
42. Upon FIFA’s request to provide the original versions of Annexe 3 (exhibit R1) and the image
rights agreement (exhibit R2) as reference in the counterclaim, the club provided the said
original documents to FIFA within the deadline provided.
Page 9
REF FPSD-3130
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
43. 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 23 July 2021 and submitted for decision on
10 March 2022. 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.
44. 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. a) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Emirati
player and a Latvian club.
45. However, the Chamber noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was of the opinion
that the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be considered inadmissible,
as the Bank Account Registration Form was not provided with the counterclaim. In this
respect, the members of the Chamber however noted that said Bank Account Registration
Form was submitted already one day after the counterclaim was lodged and was duly
communicated to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. As such, the Chamber decided to
reject said argumentation of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and decided itself
competent to deal with the entire matter at hand.
46. 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 July 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
47. 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
Page 10
REF FPSD-3130
48. 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
49. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the validity of the execution of the
image rights agreement and the document referred to as Annexe 3.
50. In particular, while the club states that Annex 1 to the contract was declared null and void by
the signing of Annexe 3 in August 2020, as well as by the conclusion of the image rights
agreement, as a result of which it had no obligation to the player in relation to Annexe 1, the
player denied that he ever signed Annexe 3 and the image rights agreement as indicted by
the club. Thus, the Chamber understood that it would need to establish whether the disputed
document could in fact be taken into consideration in the context of the present case.
51. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber went on to analyse the documentation provided
by both parties in support of their position. The Chamber also emphasised that, according to
the last sentence of art. 13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules (October 2021 edition), it has
ultimate discretion to as to the weight it gives to evidence. The Chamber then took note that
the club provided the original documents referred to as the image rights agreement and
Annexe 3.
52. At this stage, the Chamber considered appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s
deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones
of alleged falsified signature or documents, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of
the competent national criminal authority. In order to be able to solve such disputes in a
satisfactory and timely manner, without the need to wait for the initiation and conclusion of
a potential criminal investigation, the Chamber adopts a practical procedure in such cases,
namely to request the party who claims the authenticity of the disputed document to provide
its original version via regular mail. If for a layman the document appears to be authentic and
in line with the further documentation on file, such document is considered as authentic for
the purposes of solving the dispute at hand.
53. After thoroughly analysing the documentation produced by the parties, the Chamber noted
that the club was in fact able to provide the original of such document within the given
deadline.
Page 11
REF FPSD-3130
54. The DRC however was not convinced that the said documents were entered into and
concluded between the player and the club.
55. In this context the DRC mentioned that the execution of Annexe 3 and the image rights
agreement seems to be inconsistent from all the other documents signed between the parties
on file, in the sense that the stamp of the club is not visible. Furthermore, the date reflected
on the document (11 January 2020) and the date mentioned by the club (1 August 2020) are
not the same.
56. Furthermore, the DRC found the circumstances relating to the execution of the documents
quite peculiar, in that it noted that the player concluded Annex 1 to the contract on 10
January 2020, in relation to his remuneration, but according to the club the following day
already, the player would have signed a document to declare such terms null and void.
57. Against such background, the DRC was not comfortably satisfied to consider that the said
documents were entered into and therefore established that Annexe 3 and the image rights
agreement could not be taken into account in the context of the present dispute.
58. In continuation the Chamber noted that the player claims not having received his
remuneration in full for the period January 2020 until March 2021 and at the termination
date i.e. 27 March 2021, the player had outstanding remuneration due for a significant period
of time, hence the Chamber concluded that it can be established that the player had just
cause to terminate the contract, based on art. 14 of the Regulations.
59. At this point, the Chamber decided that the counterclaim of the Respondent / CounterClaimant is rejected.
ii. Consequences
60. 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.
61. Consequently, the members of the Chamber as a consequence, and in accordance with the
general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, decided that the club is liable to pay to the
player the amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the
termination, i.e. 27 March 2021.
62. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, amounts to EUR 15,989.31 net,
corresponding to the following elements:
-
EUR 270,17 as partial salary of January 2020;
EUR 270,17 as partial salary of February 2020;
EUR 630,51 as partial salary of March 2020;
Page 12
REF FPSD-3130
-
EUR 319,27 as partial salary of April 2020;
EUR 342,17 as partial salary of May 2020;
EUR 1,642.17 - (EUR 342,17 partial salary of June 2020 plus living expenses of EUR 1,300)
EUR 1,642.17 – (EUR 342,17 as partial salary of July 2020 plus living expenses of EUR
1,300)
EUR 1,642.17 – (EUR 342,17 as partial salary of August 2020 plus living expenses of EUR
1,300)
EUR 1,642.17– (EUR 342,17 as partial salary of September 2020 plus living expenses of
EUR1,300
EUR 1,642.17- (EUR 342,17 as partial salary of October 2020 plus living expenses of EUR
1,300) ;
EUR 1,642.17- ( EUR 342,17 as partial salary of November 2020 plus living expenses of
EUR 1,300)
EUR 1,076 - salary of December 2020;
EUR 1,076 - salary of January 2021;
EUR 1,076 - salary of February 2021; and
EUR 1,076 - salary of March 2021.
63. In addition, 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 at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the above amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of effective
payment.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of clause 6.4 of the contract, which
established that:
Page 13
REF FPSD-3130
“The Parties hereby agree that in case of an early termination of the Contract by the Player
(on its own initiative), without a valid reason [...], the Football Player shall pay the
compensation for unilateral termination in the amount of EUR 2 000 000 (net) within two
months from such termination (liquidated damages). The amount of compensation does not
include all damages which the Club could suffer following unilateral termination. The
payment of such compensation does not release the Football Player and his new club from
sporting sanctions, provided by FIFA and LFF regulations.”
67. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that it did
not fulfil the criteria of reciprocity and proportionality, in line with the Chamber’s
longstanding jurisprudence, and therefore could not be taken into account for establishing
the amount of compensation payable to the player.
68. As a consequence, 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 nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
69. 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
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of EUR 44,920 net (i.e. the residual value of the contract) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
70. 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.
71. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the contract.
72. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
73. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the player compensation for breach of contract
in the amount of EUR 44,920 net, corresponding to outstanding remuneration of EUR
21,520, consisting of 20 monthly salaries of EUR 1,076 each, plus 18 months’ reimbursement
Page 14
REF FPSD-3130
for living expenses in the amount of EUR 23,400 net for the period between March and
November 2021.
74. 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 23 July 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent/CounterClaimant must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at
the request of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, 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/Counter-Claimant
in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
78. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall make full payment (including all applicable interest)
to the bank account provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the Bank Account
Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
79. 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
80. 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.
Page 15
REF FPSD-3130
81. 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.
82. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 16
REF FPSD-3130
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Abdulrahim Abdulrahman Abdulrahim
Mukim Ahli, is accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, SIA FK Spartaks, is admissible.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
4.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the
following amount(s):
(a) EUR 15,989.31 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
respective due dates until the date of effective payment as follows:
-
on the amount of EUR 270,17 as from 11 January 2020;
on the amount of EUR 270,17 as from 11 February 2020;
on the amount of EUR 630,51 as from 11 March 2020;
on the amount of EUR 319,27 as from 11 April 2020;
on the amount of EUR 342,17 as from 11 May 2020;
on the amount of EUR 1,642.17 as from 11 June 2020;
on the amount of EUR 1,642.17 as from 11 July 2020;
on the amount of EUR 1,642.17 as from 11 August 2020;
on the amount of EUR 1,642.17 as from 11 September 2020;
on the amount of EUR 1,642.17 as from 11 October 2020;
on the amount of EUR 1,642.17 as from 11 November 2020;
on the amount of EUR 1,076 as from 11 December 2020;
on the amount of EUR 1,076 as from 11 January 2021;
on the amount of EUR 1,076 as from 11 February 2021; and
on the amount of EUR 1,076 as from 11 March 2021.
(b) EUR 44,920 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 23 July 2021 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24bis 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/Counter-Claimant 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.
Page 17
REF FPSD-3130
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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 18
REF FPSD-3130
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 19