Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-21-00246
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 July 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Obiora Nwankwo
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Stephane Burchkalter (France), member
MD Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member
CLAIMANT:
Obiora Nwankwo, Nigeria
Represented by Roi Rozen
RESPONDENT:
Bnei Yehuda Tel Aviv FC, Israel
Represented by Nelson Soares
Page 2
REF FPSD-21-00246
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 15 January 2021, the Nigerian player, Obiora Nwankwo (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Israeli
club, Bnei Yehuda Tel-Aviv FC (hereinafter: Respondent) signed a document titled “transfer to Bnei
Yehuda Tel Aviv Football club” (hereinafter: the pre-contract) by means of which they aimed to
facilitate a transfer of the Claimant to the Respondent.
2. In accordance with article 2 of the pre-contract:
“the Club would like to invite you to Israel, for the purpose of a physical and health examination
(the “Exams”). Subject to the Exams success, the Club will offer you a contract for the remainder
of 2020/21 season (with an option for the club to extend the agreement for additional season 2021/22 season), as follows:
The Remainder of season 2020/2021 season
2.1 Signing bonus - in case it will be decided to conclude employment agreement, and you will be
signed as the Club's player, you will be entitled for the sum of 10,000 USD (ten thousand US
Dollars).
2.2 The Net salary for the remainder of 2020/21 shall be as follows:
A total sum of USD 54,000 (Fifty-four Thousand US Dollars) as a salary for the remainder of
2020/21 season, divided into 4.5 monthly salaries in a sum of 12,000 USD each.
2.3 2021/22 season (optional)
In case the Club will decide to exercise its (sole) option to extend the agreement for 2021/22 and
you will be signed as the Club's player for the 2021/22 season, you will be entitled for the sum of
10,000 USD (ten thousand US Dollars) as signing bonuses.
2.4 In case the Club will decide to exercise its (sole) option to extend the agreement for 2021/22
and you will be signed as the Club's player for the 2021/22 season, the net salary for the of 2021/22
shall be as follows:
A total sum of USD 140,000 (One hundred and forty Thousand US Dollars) as a salary for the of
2021/22 season, divided into 10 monthly salaries in a sum of 14,000 USD each.”
3. In accordance with article 2.5 of the pre-contract “In addition, you shall be entitled to 3 flight
tickets, accommodation, and a car”.
4. Article 3 of the pre-contract states that “This offer is valid for 96 hours and will have no legal effect
whatsoever unless a written agreement-with all the matters that should be settled-is signed
between you and the Club, and based on your declaration that you are a free Player without
binding and valid contract in any football club”.
Page 3
REF FPSD-21-00246
5. On 28 January 2021, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant stating that after a period of
examination, the new coaching staff had decided not to sign the employment contract.
6. On 5 February 2021, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent contesting the contents of the
above mentioned letter and stating that the Respondent had terminated his (validly concluded)
contract without just cause.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
7. On 17 February 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
The claim of the Claimant
8. According to the Claimant, on 21 January 2021, he travelled from Portugal to Israel to join the
Respondent and added that immediately after arriving in Israel, he was submitted to the medical
exams determined by the Respondent and passed those exams with success.
9. After passing the medical exams, the Claimant submits that he was integrated in the Respondent’s
football first team and he started participating, on a daily base, in the first team’s training sessions,
together with all the other players. The Claimant further submitted that he received a set of training
equipment with the Club’s brand and colours (equal to his teammates).
10. According to the Claimant, this situation repeated consecutively and without any interruption
during the following 13 days, i.e. from 23 January until 4 of February 2021 and that on 1 February
2021, the Respondent even gave him a car as contractually agreed.
11. The Claimant adds that the contract could not be registered in the Israeli Football Association (IFA)
and that the Respondent apparently stated that the contractual conditions had to be included in
an annex to the official contract form of the IFA. As a result of this, on 28 January 2021, the
Respondent sent to the Claimant’s representative in Israel (Mr. Stave Hakmon) an email with two
different agreements drafts:
-The first one, with the title “Annex to Players agreement form”, dated 28 January 2021, which
envisaged the payment to the Player USD 14,000 in the 2020/2021 season and USD 50,000 in the
2021/2022 season; and
-A second one, with the title “Purchase of rights agreement”, also dated 28 January 2021, which
envisaged the purchase of the Player’s federative and economic rights, for the amount of USD
34,000 in the 2020/2021 sportive season and by the amount of USD 90,000 in the 2021/2022
season.
12. According to the Claimant, his representatives questioned the Respondent about the structure of
those two documents, that reflected different conditions from the ones that had been settled in
Page 4
REF FPSD-21-00246
the pre-contract, and the lower remuneration amount for the remainder period of the 2020/2021
season (according to pre-contract the Claimant would be entitled to earn a total of USD 64,000 in
the 2020/21, while in the new drafts, a total of USD 34,000 plus USD 10,000 in the event of the
contract not being renewed was proposed).
13. The Claimant adds that his representatives were then informed that the conditions expressed in
the new contract drafts were final, but still suggested some amendments.
14. On 2 February 2021, the Claimant submits that the Respondent’s attorney Mr. Yuval Shadmi sent
by e-mail (with the Club CEO copied) a final version of those agreements with final comments.
15. The Claimant adds that - since he had signed the pre-contract and was already training with the
first team; the borders between countries were closed and there were no flights to Portugal;- he
had no other option than to sign those new contract drafts and that the Respondent was informed
about this decision.
16. However, on 4 February 2021, the Respondent allegedly delivered in hand to the Claimant’s
representative a letter addressed to the Claimant, wrongly dated 28 January 2021, stating that it
had decided to not sign the employment contract with the Claimant.
17. According to the letter, the decision to dismiss the Claimant was motivated by the technical opinion
of the new coach and as a result, as from 5 February 2021 onwards, the Claimant was prevented
from participating in the training sessions and was apparently evicted from his hotel at the
Respondent’s instruction.
18. The Claimant submits that by dismissing him, the Respondent breached unilaterally and without
just cause the contract and constituted itself in the obligation of compensating him for all damages
and losses emergent from that conduct.
19. In this respect, the Claimant adds that he would be entitled to receive the total net amount of USD
214,000 from which: (i) USD 55,000 was due as signing bonus and salary for the remainder
2020/2021 season; and (ii) USD 150,000 was due as signing bonus and salary for the 2021/2022
sportive season.
20. In continuation, the Claimant submits that in regards to the liquidation of those damages, it is
absolutely irrelevant if there was a unilateral option on behalf of the Respondent for the second
season as that second season was previously agreed between the parties and that the Claimant
had a legitimate expectation to fulfil it. Therefore, that possibility was denied prematurely by the
Respondent’s decision to terminate the contract.
21. The Claimant adds that at the date of the termination of the contract (4 February 2021), the
transfer window in the majority of the European championships was already closed and as a result,
he was not able to sign with a new club until the end of the current season. This, according to the
Claimant, will influence an eventual contract for next season (2021/2022), because any Club will
Page 5
REF FPSD-21-00246
doubt his condition, because he was without training for one whole season and that this will
influence the economic value of his future contract.
22. Therefore, according to the Claimant, the Respondent should be condemned to pay compensation
in the amount of USD 214,000, corresponding to all signing fees and salaries that became due
until the contract end date of June 2022.
23. In addition to the above, the Claimant submits that the Respondent “forced him to leave the hotel
where he was staying, took the car it had provided and left him abandoned in a foreign country”,
with no possibility to return to his home country as the borders between Israel and Portugal were
closed. As a result, he has had to depend on help from third persons.
24. In consideration with his specific situation and in accordance with article 2.5 of the pre-contract,
the Claimant requests that he be granted the right to compensation for all accommodation,
alimentation and travel expenses to Portugal, until he returned to Portugal on 11 March 2021.
25. In support of this claim for accommodation expenses, the Claimant explained that he stayed in the
following accommodations after the unilateral termination of his contract:
-between 8 to 11 February 2021, he resided in a private apartment;
-between 11 and 12 February 2021, he stayed at the Crowne Plaza Hotel for which he paid USD
153.23;
-between 12 and 19 February 2021, in a private apartment;
-between 19 and 28 February 2021, at the Margosa hotel for which he paid EUR 1,545;
-between 28 February and 5 March 2021, in an apartment for which he paid ILS 1,250;
-between 5 and 10 March 2021, in an apartment for which he paid ILS 1,407.41.
26. Furthermore, the Claimant submits that he spent USD 1,245 on the return flight to Portugal.
27. It is important to clarify according to the Claimant that since he had no economical possibility for
paying those expenses, it was the Company “Proeleven Ld” that advanced with its payment, as a
loan and because of this reason, some of the invoices do not making reference to the Claimant,
but to Proeleven’s company.
28. In continuation, the Claimant submits that he suffered psychological damage as a result of the
Respondent’s conduct. Therefore, due to all those egregious circumstances, he requests to be
granted additional compensation corresponding to 6 monthly salaries in the amount of USD
72,000 and indemnification for all moral damages, in an amount not less than USD 100,000.
29. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
-USD 214,000 as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the signing bonus and
salaries that would be due in 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 sportive seasons, i.e. until the
contract’s term;
-USD 72,000 as additional compensation corresponding to 6 monthly salaries, due to the
egregious circumstances;
Page 6
REF FPSD-21-00246
-USD 100,000 as moral damages;
-USD 1,698.23 as accommodation expenses (USD 153.23 as from 11 to 12 February 2021 and
EUR 1,545 the period between 19 and 28 February 2021);
-Israeli New Shekel (ILS) 2,657.41 as accommodation expenses for the period between 28
February and 10 March 2021;
-USD 153.23 and USD 1,245 as the cost of his return flight to Portugal;
-default interest at the rate of 5% per annum calculated over the mentioned compensations,
calculated from 4 February 2021 (date of contract’s termination according to the Claimant) until
the date of the effective payment;
-that the Respondent should pay the procedural costs;
-sanction the Respondent in accordance with article 17.4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
b.
Position of the Respondent
30. The Respondent in its reply stated that the issue of whether the pre-contract was terminated with
or without just cause does not have to be raised, since the document at stake never became
binding.
31. According to the Respondent, it informed the Claimant several times that he was invited for
professional examinations, with no obligation to conclude an employment agreement and that it
is not justified to accept the claim based on the Claimant's unilateral self-interpretation.
32. In fact, the Respondent argued that the agreement between the parties did not become valid, due
to the mutually agreed terms (conditions) not being fulfilled.
33. The Respondent submits that on 15 January 2021, the Claimant was provided with a pre-contract
to come to Israel in order to be exanimated for the senior team and adds that the Claimant was
invited for the purpose of a physical and health examination and general impression - from his side
and from the Club side (hereafter the “the medical examination“). According to the Respondent,
its intention was to professionally examine the Claimant during professional and physical training.
34. According to the Respondent, it was clear and was mutually agreed that the Claimant would be
provided with a definitive employment contract offer upon (subject to) several conditions in
accordance with article 2 and 3 of “pre-contract”. By having agreed to sign the Invitation, the
Claimant also accepted the condition(s) of its provisory nature and of its possible, but not
necessary, conversion into a permanent employment relationship with the Respondent.
Page 7
REF FPSD-21-00246
35. The Respondent adds that it was not obliged to conclude a permanent employment contract with
the Claimant and that by no means such an obligation, clearly contrary to the principle of
contractual freedom, could derive from the invitation's wordings.
36. The Respondent rejects the Claimant's argument that the parties signed a "sportive employment
agreement [...]" as the Claimant was only under status of Examinee/Candidate.
37. According to the Respondent confirms that on arrival in Israel, it took care of the Claimant’s social
needs, accommodation, and provided him with all the necessary equipment and logistical needs,
and in addition provided him with a rental car.
38. The Respondent adds that the Claimant began his training exams as examinee but he was never
registered officially. The purpose of the Claimant's participation was to examine him before any
professional decision would be made by the team's staff.
39. According to the Respondent, during such period (approximately ten days) no binding and/or valid
contract was concluded and/or signed between the parties.
40. In parallel, with no obligation and/or duty and/or commitment, the parties exchanged employment
agreement draft. According to the Respondent, such exchanges of employment agreement entirely
collapses the Claimant's claims that the invitation was a binding employment agreement.
41. The Respondent further submits that it was also stated in the draft that "It is hereby agreed
between the Parties, that this Agreement is conditioned and will be valid and come into force only
when the Player's transfer to the Team is completed and approved by the Association and; only
after his final registration. Should these two (2} conditions won't be fulfilled. For any reason
including but not limited -signing and executing an agreement with the Player's current club} this
Agreement will be void and of no effect whatsoever and the Player won't have any claim and/or
demand against the club."
42. According to the Respondent, not only was the pre-contract subject to few conditions - which
never fulfilled or met - but also the employment contract drafts were subject to several conditions
(which were never met).
43. The Respondent argues that it did not promise that the parties will sign a binding contract and did
not make any commitments regarding the Claimant and therefore it, denies the Claimant’s “bad
faith attempt” to describe it as a party who confirmed the existence of a binding employment
agreement on the basis of its actions.
44. According to the Respondent, the Claimant was free to negotiate and discuss with other clubs
regarding his services as a football player. The fact that it provided the Claimant with
accommodation and trainings cannot - by any way - constitute as basis to the Claimant's
arguments regarding valid agreement and/or constitute as evidence that the parties concluded a
binding contract.
Page 8
REF FPSD-21-00246
45. Additionally, according to the Respondent, it never announced anything regarding any kind of
understandings with the Claimant on its website and/or to the local media and did not take any
actions to be provided with his International Transfer Certificate (ITC) or contact his previous club.
46. There was therefore no binding relationship between the parties as the Respondent decided not
to conclude or sign a binding contract with the Claimant, and it informed the Claimant about this
decision in writing.
47. The Respondent adds that the FIFA Regulations and Swiss law do not provide a specific, explicit
definition of a "pre-contract". This notion is however well known in legal practice and the clear
distinction between a "pre-contract" and a "contract" is that the "pre-contract" does not reflect
the final agreement.
48. In this case, it was more than clear that unless a written agreement - with all the matters that
should be settled- is signed between the parties, no final binding and valid agreement was
concluded.
49. According to the Respondent, based on good practice clause 3 of the pre-contract should not be
considered as an obligation to conclude the final contract as such clause leaves no room for
interpretation and clearly reflects the true intention of both parties - the invitation is conditioned
and not final and/or valid as employment agreement.
50. The Respondent adds that according to the law, it is required for the parties to expressly mention
that the document is not the final contract and that it does not represent the definitive agreement
between the parties which is the case in the present case.
51. As a result, the Respondent contends that the pre-contract lacks essential elements of a real
employment contract as it does not contain all the essential elements in order for it to become an
employment contract which can be considered valid and binding. Therefore, the proposal cannot
be considered as a valid and binding contract between the parties and, therefore, the Respondent
committed no breach of contract by terminating the relationship with the Claimant.
52. In regards to the Claimant’s request for expenses incurred, the Respondent submits that it is
obvious and clear that under this case’s circumstances - where no binding contract was signed - it
was not responsible and/or obligated to ensure the Claimant's accommodation and flight
expenses, after the decision not to conclude an employment agreement.
53. Furthermore, according to the Respondent, the Claimant violated his obligation to mitigate
damages because under these circumstances it seems that he did not intend to find a new club in
order to mitigate his damages.
54. The Respondent adds that FIFA approved extensions of the registration periods, in a way which
allowed players and clubs to conclude agreements and registrations after the original transfer
windows deadlines.
Page 9
REF FPSD-21-00246
55. As a result, the Respondent submits that if it will be determined that the (disputed) compensation
to the Claimant is justified, a significant sum (at least minimum his salary according to the invitation
concerning the remainder of 2020/21 season and the entire value of the additional seasons) must
be deducted from the compensation amount, as the Claimant did not fulfil his duty to mitigate his
alleged damage.
56. In conclusion, the Respondent submits that in view of the above, it will be redundant and not
justified to accept the Claimant's claim by imposing any kind of payments on it.
57. Without derogating from the above, the Respondent therefore requests to hold the Claimant
responsible for the payment of the Respondent's legal expenses in respect of this procedure.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
58. 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 17 February 2021 and submitted for decision on 15
July 2021. 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.
59. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed 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 (February 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 Nigerian player and an Israeli club.
60. 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 (February 2021 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 17 February 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
61. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 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 DRC stressed the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of
the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties.
Page 10
REF FPSD-21-00246
62. In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the
Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the
application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in TMS.
c.
Merits of the dispute
63. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the
DRC 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
64. 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 whether a binding contract was signed
between them.
65. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine whether the precontract signed between the parties constitutes a valid and binding document on the parties and
the consequences thereto.
66. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s submission that a contract was unilaterally
terminated by the Respondent without just cause and as a result, he is entitled to compensation
for breach of contract.
67. The Chamber also took note of the Respondent’s submission that the parties never entered into a
binding contract as the initial document (i.e. the pre-contract) was merely an invitation to assess
the Claimant’s capacities.
68. From the documentation on file and in particular the contents of the pre-contract, the Chamber
deemed that the pre-contract contains all the essentialia negotii in order to be considered a valid
and binding employment agreement as the parties, object, term, and remuneration which outline
the employment relationship between the club and the player can be found in such document.
69. What is more, the Chamber deemed that as per the allegations of the Claimant, it can be
concluded that the typical activities concerning the execution of such pre-contract appeared to
have taken place as per the documentation provided by the Claimant (i.e. a medical examination
took place, a valid pre-contract concluded between the parties, attending training sessions,
provision of a car).
70. However, the Chamber took note of the fact that the pre-contract contains a disclaimer clause
which seemingly intends to modify its legal effect by stating that it is subject to the Claimant
passing the exams or that it shall have no legal effect without a written agreement with all the
matters that should be settled.
Page 11
REF FPSD-21-00246
71. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the reference to the formal element of the contract bears
no legal effect. Indeed, as a general principle, where the parties have agreed on all the essential
terms, it is presumed that the contract will be binding notwithstanding any reservation on
secondary terms.
72. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that pursuant to article 18 par. 4 of the Regulations, the validity
of a contract may not be made subject to a successful medical examination.
73. Furthermore, based on the evidence on file, the DRC noted that the parties started to execute the
pre-contract by the Respondent sending two contract drafts containing all the essentialia negotii
which in its opinion created a realistic expectation on the part of the Claimant that he would be
registered with the Respondent. However, since these documents were not executed by the
parties, they bear no relevance in the outcome of the dispute, and the DRC thus decided to focus
on the contents of the pre-contract which it noted was fully signed by both parties. Once again,
the DRC confirmed that it was comfortable to do so on the basis that the pre-contract contained
all the essentialia negotii.
74. Finally, the DRC noted that the pre-contract contained a deadline of 96 hours to accept the offer,
and it remained uncontested between the parties that the pre-contract was duly accepted by the
Claimant within said period of time.
75. Consequently and with the above in mind, the Chamber concluded that that the pre-contract is
valid and binding on the parties.
76. With the above in mind, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent unilaterally terminated the
employment relationship without just cause and that the Claimant is entitled to compensation for
breach of contract insofar as the unilateral termination by the Respondent was made without any
reason and thus without just cause.
ii. Consequences
77. 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 and
decided that the Respondent shall pay the Claimant compensation for breach of contract.
78. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration the Claimant’s respective
claim and art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent
compensation for breach of contract.
79. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-21-00246
other benefits due to the Claimant 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.
80. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC held that it first had to clarify whether the
pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had
beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach
of contract. In this regard, the DRC concluded that this was not the case in the present claim.
81. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the value of the pre-contract was USD 214,000, which it
determined shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
82. In continuation, the DRC verified as to whether the Claimant 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 contents of art.17 par.2 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 coach’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
83. In continuation, the DRC verified as to whether the Claimant 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 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 Claimant’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
84. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant remained unemployed and was therefore
not able to mitigate his losses.
85. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant the amount of USD
214,000 as compensation for breach of contract, an amount the DRC concluded was fair and
reasonable in the matter at hand.
86. What is more, in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC in this respect, as well as
taken into account the request of the Claimant, the Chamber decided to award 5% interest p.a.
on the amount of USD 214,000 as of the date of the claim.
87. Additionally, the Chamber deemed that the Claimant had submitted sufficient evidence to justify
his request to be re-imbursed for the expenses incurred by him broken down as follows:
-USD 1,398.23 as accommodation expenses from 11 to 12 February 2021 in the amount of USD
153,23 and USD 1,245 as the cost of his return flight to Portugal;
-EUR 1,545 (approximately USD 1,836) as accommodation expenses for the period between 19
and 28 February 2021;
-ILS 2,657.41 (approximately USD 815) as accommodation expenses for the period between 28
February and 10 March 2021.
Page 13
REF FPSD-21-00246
88. As a result, the Chamber awarded the Claimant USD 4,049,23 as reimbursement for expenses
incurred.
89. What is more, in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC in this respect, as well as
taken into account the request of the Claimant, the Chamber decided to award 5% interest p.a.
on the amount of USD 4,049,23 as of the date of the current claim.
90. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant requested USD 72,000 as additional
compensation corresponding to 6 monthly salaries, due to the egregious circumstances. However,
the Chamber deemed that this claim cannot be upheld, as the termination was not made because
of outstanding remuneration and it was effectively the Respondent who terminated the
employment relationship. Therefore, on the basis of the strict contents of art. 17 of the
Regulations, the DRC concluded that it had no legal basis to award such amounts to the Claimant.
91. Furthermore, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for USD 100,000 as moral damages,
for lack of a regulatory or legal basis to award such amounts.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
92. Finally, taking into account the consideration above, the Chamber referred to par. 1 lit. 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.
93. 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.
94. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art.
24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
95. 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.
96. 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.
Page 14
REF FPSD-21-00246
d.
Costs
97. The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of
contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and a
player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
98. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of
the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these
proceedings.
99. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-21-00246
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Obiora Nwankwo, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Bnei Yehuda Tel Aviv FC, has to pay to the Claimant, USD 214,000 as
compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 17 February 2021 until the
effective date of payment.
3. The Respondent has to pay the Claimant USD 4,049.23 as expenses plus 5% interest p.a. as of
17 February 2021 until the effective date of 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. Pursuant to article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not paid 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 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 paid by the end of
the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24bis paragraphs 7 and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-21-00246
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 17