Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01708
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 March 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Antonio Filipe Norinho de Carvalho
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Netherlands & Uruguay), member
CLAIMANT:
Antonio Filipe Norinho de Carvalho, Portugal
RESPONDENT:
Al Jabalain FC, Saudi Arabia
Page 2 of 11
REF 20-01708
I.
Facts
1.
On 10 January 2020, the parties concluded an employment contract valid as from the date
of signature until 1 June 2020 (i.e. 5 months).
2.
According to the contract, the player was entitled to USD 8,000 per month, plus USD
15,000 as “the contract provider”. The contract stipulated that the total value is USD
55,000.
3.
The contract further stipulated the following:
"Article IX:
Settlement of Disputes
1- The parties will seek to resolve their differences on the implementation of the
contract amicable settlement
2- The Saudi arbitration center shall be used in case of dispute between the club and
the player In Implementing the terms of the contract.”
4.
On 25 May 2020, the parties signed a document with the following contents:
“Whereas, the two parties entered into a contract for a professional football player on
10/01/2020 and it starts to run from 10/01/2020 until 01/06/2020 (referred to as the
contract) and that the clause of the first clause of the circular Issued by the Federation
Saudi Football Association No. (2/6387) dated 22/10/1441 AH obliged clubs and players
to extend contracts until the end of the sports season 2019/2020, as the two parties
agreed to agree this contract to supplement some of the terms of the contract
The first clause: He agreed to amend the second clause of the contract to end on
20/09/2020
The second Item: The second party from the first party receives a monthly salary and
capacity of 8000 eight thousand US dollars during the period from the date of
01/06/2020 to the date of 20/09/2020 which is the same monthly salary in the contract
The third Item: Add the rest of what is mentioned in this appendix.”
5.
On 27 October 2020, the legal representative of the player sent a default notice indicating
the following:
“We remind your club owes to our client four full months of salary. This outstanding
amount is equal to SAR 120,000 (Saudi Arabia Riyals) or USD 32,000 (US Dollars).
In addition to that, your club should also pay SAR 7,000 / USD 1,866.67 as game
bonuses.
At last, your club made our client train and play when he tested positive for COVID-19,
endangering his health as well as the others. In the event we do not read back from you
until the end of the week, we are filing a clam at FIFA”
6.
The Respondent provided a copy of the Statute of the Saudi Sport Arbitration Center,
which contains, inter alia, the following articles:
“Article 2: SSAC
The SSAC is the body which has the supreme and exclusive power to resolve sports
disputes and sports-related disputes by arbitration or mediation. It is an independent
and impartial body, with a legal personality and financial and administrative
independence. It shall be represented by the President of the Board or his authorized
representative.
(…)
Page 3 of 11
REF 20-01708
Article 4: Legal Reference
The SSAC was established in accordance with the Olympic Charter, the Statutes of
International Federations (IFs), CAS Rules and Regulations, and Saudi Law of Arbitration.
8.1. The SSAC jurisdiction shall be applicable only when the dispute is reported in less
than 21 days by the disputing parties through official channels as defined by the
concerned regulation
8.2. In sports disputes, if any of the parties to the dispute is a foreigner,then the
awards may be appealed before the International Sports Federations (IFs) or CAS, in case
the IFs' Statute stipulate that appeal shall be made before their judicial bodies. In case
the contract stipulatesthat the arbitration shall fall within the SSAC jurisdiction, then the
SSAC Award shall be final and non-appealable before any other authority.
(…)
Article 26: Composition of Arbitration Panels
Arbitration Panels shall be composed of three arbitrators or a single arbitrator (upon the
request of the litigants) who shall be selected only from the SSAC- approved list of
arbitrators.”
7.
The Respondent further provided the 2016 edition of the Procedural Rules of the Saudi
Sport Arbitration Center, which include, inter alia, the following articles:
“10.1
The Party requesting arbitration (Claimant) shall pay the arbitration fees upon
submitting a matter to the SSAC. In case the Claimant requests fast track arbitration,
the Claimant shall pay the fees as prescribed. All the fees are non-refundable.”
8.
On 23 November 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent
and requested the following:
i.
pay the outstanding salaries in the amount of SAR 140,000, equivalent
to USD 37,333, plus 5% p.a. interest as of the due date, until the date
of effective payment;
ii.
pay the compensation for endangering the life of the Claimant in the amount
of six salaries, which represents SAR 180,000.00 and it is equivalent to USD
48,000;
9.
According to the Claimant, the club delivered a document written exclusively in Arabic
and imposed and pressured him to sign it. The Claimant explained that the Respondent
tried to pay half of his salaries April and May 2020, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.
10. The Claimant further explained that he tested positive for COVID-19 on 30 June 2020, 5
July 2020, and 12 July 2020.
11. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent contested the jurisdiction of FIFA on the basis of
art. IX par. 2 of the contract, and considered that the SSAC shall be competent.
12. In the opinion of the Respondent, the Saudi Arbitration Center provides all principal of
fair, parity and impartially and it was the choice of the parties when they concluded the
contract.
13. As to the salary reduction, the Respondent argued that it is clear that the player was well
aware of the content of the document and agreed to reduce his salary without any kind
of pressure from the club like the majority of players and club staff.
Page 4 of 11
REF 20-01708
14. In relation to the language, the Respondent explained that, pursuant to the wellestablished FIFA DRC jurisprudence “a party signing a document of legal importance
without knowledge of its precise content, as a general rule, does so on its own
responsibility”
15. Concerning the outstanding salaries, the club explained that the contract was extended
until 20 September 2020. Hence, in the opinion of the club, the player was entitled to the
following amounts:
Advance payment
15000 USD i.e. 56.250 Saudi Riyal
January 2020 ( 20 days)
5.333 USD i.e. 20.000 Saudi Riyal
February 2020
8.000 USD i.e. 30.000 Saudi Riyal
March 2020
8.000 USD i.e. 30.000 Saudi Riyal
April 2020 ( 50 % as agreed between the parties )
4.000 USD i.e. 15.000 Saudi Riyal
May ( 50 % as agreed between the parties )
4.000 USD i.e. 15.000 Saudi Riyal
June 2020
8.000 USD i.e. 30.000 Saudi Riyal
July 2020
8.000 USD i.e. 30.000 Saudi Riyal
August 2020
8.000 USD i.e. 30.000 Saudi Riyal
September 2020 ( 20 days)
5.333 USD i.e. 20.000 Saudi Riyal
Total
73.666 USD i.e. 276.250 Saudi
Riyal
16. In this respect, the club explained that it paid the player as follows:
Date
Amount
Method of payment
23-01-2020
03-03-2020
13-04-2020
09-07-2020
17-09-2020
28-09-2020
Total
56.250
30.000
30.000
30.000
30.000
30.000
206.250
Saudi
Riyal i.e.15000 USD
Saudi Riyal i.e. 8.000 USD
Saudi Riyal i.e. 8.000 USD
Saudi Riyal i.e. 8.000 USD
Saudi Riyal i.e. 8.000 USD
Saudi Riyal i.e. 8.000 USD
SAR i.e. 55.000 USD
Cheque 0000004372
Cheque 0000004529
Cheque 0000004584
Cheque 0000004662
Cheque 0000004859
Cheque 0000004846
17. In view of the above, the club acknowledged that it owes to the player the amount of
SAR 60,000, equivalent to USD 16,000, and considered that this amount is due is due
essentially to the player’s default and negligence.
18. In this respect, the club explained that, on 18 October 2020, it requested the player to
provide his bank details.
19. As to the requested compensation, the club considered that the request for said
compensation as presented by the Claimant had no legal basis or evidence that
demonstrated the damage suffered or its quantity.
20. In his replica, the player rejected the competence of the Saudi Arbitration Centre as a
dispute resolution body.
Page 5 of 11
REF 20-01708
21. The player argued that the Saudi Arabian Arbitration Centre does not provide the
basic principles of a fair trial such as parity of arms and impartiality, as well as presenting
language and procedural barriers.
22. As to the reduction of salaries the player explained that had no other option than to sign
it as he was “being in a foreign country, not speaking the language, and in a
vulnerable position.”
23. The player therefore insisted that the Respondent still owes him SAR 140,000, which is
equivalent to USD 37,333.
24. Alternatively, the Respondent admitted that, if FIFA considers the Respondent’s
arguments as valid, the Respondent should still be ordered to pay SAR 83,750 (SAR
260,000 –SAR 176,250), which is equivalent to USD 22,500.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. 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.
Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2. Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and emphasised that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art.
22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with matters which concern employmentrelated disputes with an international dimension between players and clubs.
3. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent, claimed that the Saudi Sport
Arbitration Center (hereinafter: the SSAC) was competent to deal with the present case.
4. In particular, the Chamber took note that the Respondent argued that the SSAC provides
all principal of fair, parity and impartially and it was the choice of the parties when they
concluded the contract, insofar it was mentioned in art. IX of the contract.
5. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Claimant argued that the SSAC does not
provide the basic principles of a fair trial such as parity of arms and impartiality, as well
as presenting language and procedural barriers.
6. As a consequence, the Chamber started by acknowledging that the parties did not dispute
that the matter at hand was brought to an alternative dispute resolution process within
football.
7. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasized that it was necessary to
ascertain who is competent to decide on the issue within the football-related dispute
resolution system. In other words, the competence of a national deciding body on the
one side and FIFA on the other must be determined.
Page 6 of 11
REF 20-01708
8. In this regard, the Chamber referred to art. 22 b) of the Regulations, according to which
it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand unless an independent
arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the
framework of the Association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to
the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair
proceedings, the Chamber referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005
and the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC)
Standard Regulations which came into force on 1 January 2008 (underline added).
9. In view of the above, the Chamber went on to examine the documentary evidence
presented by the Respondent, i.e. the copy of the “Statute of the Saudi Sport Arbitration
Center” (hereinafter: the SSAC Statute).
10. In this regards, the Dispute Resolution Chamber reminded the parties of the contents of
art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “any party claiming a right on
the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”.
11. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that according to the relevant part of the
SSAC Statute established in its art. 8.2 that “the SSAC jurisdiction shall be applicable only
when the dispute is reported in less than 21 days by the disputing parties through official
channels as defined by the concerned regulation”.
12. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the existence a statute of limitations of only
21 days calculated as from the event giving rise to the dispute, is manifestly short and
prejudices the right of a player to be heard.
13. Furthermore, after observing the contents of art. 10 and 11 of the SSAC Statute, as well
as other applicable evidence sent in this regard, the Chamber understood that there is no
sufficient evidence on how the arbitrators of the SSAC are appointed, and whether said
appointments are compatible with the right to receive fair proceedings.
14. In addition, the Chamber also observed that the Procedural rules of the SSAS stated the
following:
“10.1
The Party requesting arbitration (Claimant) shall pay the arbitration fees upon
submitting a matter to the SSAC. In case the Claimant requests fast track arbitration,
the Claimant shall pay the fees as prescribed. All the fees are non-refundable.”
15. In the opinion of the Chamber, the non-refundable nature of the arbitration fees may
undermine the rights of the parties to be heard.
16. In sum, the Chamber considered that the Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof
on whether the SSAC effectively guarantees fair proceedings. As a result, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber confirmed that it is competent to deal with the matter at stake.
17. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which edition of the
Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present
Page 7 of 11
REF 20-01708
matter. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in accordance
with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and
considering the date when the claim was lodged, the June 2020 edition of the
aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand.
18. With the above having been established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into
the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case
as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and
documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
19. In this respect, the Chamber first noted that, on 10 January 2020, the parties concluded
an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 1 June 2020, which was
extended until 20 September 2020.
20. Thereafter, the Chamber observed that the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against
the Respondent and requested, inter alia, to be paid with the outstanding salaries in
the amount of SAR 140,000, equivalent to USD 37,333.
21. In relation to said request, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s position,
according to which it acknowledged that it owes to the player the amount of SAR 60,000,
equivalent to USD 16,000.
22. As a result, the Chamber understood that the main legal issue at stake is to determine
the exact amount that was due to the player.
23. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the contract was extended until 20 September.
As a result, the player was entitled to his remuneration until said date.
24. At this stage, the Chamber considered pertinent to recall the contents of art. 12 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which “3. Any party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. During the proceedings, the parties shall
submit all relevant facts and evidence of which they are aware at that time, or of which
they should have been aware if they had exercised due care” and “7. Evidence shall be
considered with free discretion, taking into account the conduct of the parties during the
proceedings, especially a failure to comply with a personal summons, a refusal to answer
questions and the withholding of requested evidence.”
25. Within this context, the Chamber further noted that the player and the club signed a
document in Arabic, stipulating a salary reduction for the months of April and May. In
this respect, the Chamber expressed that, although the Claimant argued that the club
imposed him to sign a document in a language he did not understand, the longstanding
jurisprudence of the DRC establishes that a party signing a document of legal importance
without knowledge of its precise content, as a general rule, does so on its own
responsibility. Hence, the DRC dismissed the argument of the player in this regard.
Page 8 of 11
REF 20-01708
26. The foregoing being established, and after duly examining the documentation gathered
during the course of the investigation, as well as the position of the parties, the Chamber
arrived to the conclusion that the player’s remuneration for July 2020 (USD 8,000), August
2020 (USD 8,000) and 20 days of September (USD 5,333, calculated on a pro rata basis),
remained unpaid.
27. Consequently, in strict application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber established that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, the
total outstanding amount of USD 21,333, as detailed in the previous paragraphs.
28. Moreover, taking into account the request of the Claimant as well as the longstanding
jurisprudence in this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to award 5%
interest p.a. over said amount as from the due dates.
29. Furthermore, taking into account the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
30. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber pointed out 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 and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
31. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, in
the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45
days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present
decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the 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 effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
32. Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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. 3 of the Regulations.
Page 9 of 11
REF 20-01708
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Antonio Filipe Norinho de Carvalho, is admissible
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Al Jabalain FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the amount of USD 21,333 as
outstanding remuneration, plus interest as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 8,000 as from 1 August 2020 until the date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 8,000 as from 1 September 2020 until the date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 5,333 as from 21 September 2020 until the date of effective payment;
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the
relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
6.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with
this decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official
FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the
Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant
bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban
mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the
due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the
end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present
matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 10 of 11
REF 20-01708
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 11 of 11