Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14101
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Ibrahim Nurudeen
BY:
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Ibrahim Nurudeen, Ghana
Represented by Deep Ray
RESPONDENT:
NEROCA FC, India
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14101
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 January 2024, the Ghanaian player, Ibrahim Nurudeen (hereinafter: Claimant or player)
and the Indian club, NEROCA FC (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 3 January 2024 until 31 May 2024.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of Indian Rupees (INR) 1,70,000 as well as a monthly food allowance of INR 5,000, payable
on the 15th day of each month.
3.
On 29 January 2024, the player sustained an ankle injury.
4.
On 3 March 2024, the club sent a letter to the player stating that he would be “treated as no
work/training no pay during his absent from the training mentioned above and his salary will
be made only after joining the normal training with full recovery from injury”. According to the
club, the player did hide the injury when signing the contract.
5.
On 3 March 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
his salary for January 2024 as well as being reinstated in the team in order to train by no
later than 11 March 2024.
6.
On 10 March 2024, the club terminated the contract with the player since he was “not fit”
when signing the contract.
7.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player
remained unemployed until today.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 18 March 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
9.
In his claim, the Claimant requested payment of INR 8,86,718 as compensation for breach
of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 11 March 2024.
10. In his claim, the player argued that the club had no just cause to terminate the contract.
11. He held that he was not paid by the club and therefore claimed being entitled to the total
contractual value inclusive a reimbursement of a medical bill.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14101
b. Position of the Respondent
12. The Respondent failed to provide any reply to the claim within the time-limit set.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter also referred to as 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 18 March 2024 and submitted for decision on 25
April 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 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.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (February 2024),
he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a player and a club.
15. 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. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 18 March 2024, the February 2024
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
16. 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 it may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14101
c. Merits of the dispute
17. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 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
18. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the matter at hand concerns a claim of a player
against a club for breach of contract.
19. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to decide if the club had
just cause to terminate the contract with the player or not, and to decide on the
consequences thereof.
20. In this framework, the Single Judge noted that according to the Claimant, the club
terminated the contract without just cause on 10 March 2024, after having excluded him
from training on 3 March 2024.
21. The Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the player within
the time-limit set. In this way, the Single Judge considered that the Respondent renounced
its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
22. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber
concurred that in accordance with art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a
decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the
statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
23. In this regard, the Single Judge started to analyse the circumstances of the club’s
termination of the contract dated 10 March 2024.
24. Subsequently, the Single Judge recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which
only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a
contract without prior warning. 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 for an employer to assure the employee’s
fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an
employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only be an
ultima ratio.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14101
25. According to the documentation on file, the club terminated the contract with the player
since he was “not fit”. The Single Judge pointed out that such reasoning does not constitute
a just cause and certainly is not the ultima ratio to terminate a contract.
26. On account of the above, the Single Judge decided that the club had no just cause to
terminate the contract on 10 March 2024.
ii. Consequences
27. Having stated the above, the members of the Single Judge turned his attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
28. The Single Judge observed that the player claimed a total amount of INR 8,86,718, including
a reimbursement of a medical bill of INR 13,600. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that
the player received partial salaries in the amount of INR 1,182 (INR 8,86,718 – 13,600 =
8,73,118, whereby total contractual value is INR 875,000, including food allowance).
29. As to the outstanding remuneration, the Single Judge decided to award the player the
amount of INR 3,61,718 (INR 350,000-1,882+13,600 as medical expenses) as salaries for
January and February 2024.
30. 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 of the termination, i.e. INR
3,61,718.
31. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 11 March 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
32. Having stated the above, the Single Judge 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 Single
Judge 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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14101
33. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
34. As a consequence, the members of the Single Judge 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 non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
35. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
concluded that the amount of INR 5,25,000 (3x INR 175,000, salaries of March 2024 until
May 2024) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
36. In continuation, the Single Judge 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.
37. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
38. The Single Judge 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.
39. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of INR 5,25,000, as the residual value of the contract.
40. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 11 March 2024 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14101
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14101
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ibrahim Nurudeen, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, NEROCA FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- INR 3,61,718 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 March 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- INR 5,25,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 11 March 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14101
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 10