Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01373
Decision of the
DRC Judge
passed on 24 March 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Deveer Akeem Orgill
BY:
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Deveer Akeem Orgill, Jamaica
Represented by Av. Burak Cakir
RESPONDENT:
MKE Ankaragücü Spor Kulubu, Turkey
Page 2 of 9
REF 20-01373
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
The Jamaican player, Deveer Akeem Orgill (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Turkish club,
MKE Ankaragucu Spor Kulubu (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract
valid as from 31 January 2019 until 31 May 2020.
2.
In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia the following amounts:
Season 2018/2019:
o A guaranteed wage of EUR 80,000 to be paid on 31 January 2019,
o An additional wage to be paid as follows:
EUR 10,000 on 15 February 2019,
EUR 35,000 on 25 February 2019,
EUR 50,000 on 25 March 2019,
EUR 50,000 on 25 April 2019,
EUR 50,000 on 25 May 2019,
Season 2019/2020:
o A guaranteed down payment of EUR 150,000 to be paid on 31 July 2019.
o An additional wage to be paid as follows:
EUR 20,000 on 31 August 2019,
EUR 20,000 on 30 September 2019,
EUR 20,000 on 31 October 2019,
EUR 20,000 on 30 November 2019,
EUR 20,000 on 31 December 2019,
EUR 20,000 on 31 January 2020,
EUR 20,000 on 28 February 2020,
EUR 20,000 on 31 March 2020,
EUR 20,000 on 30 April 2020,
EUR 20,000 on 31 May 2020.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
3.
On 23 September 2020, the Claimant filed the claim for outstanding remuneration against
the Respondent before FIFA. The Respondent, for its part, has not replied to the claim. A
brief summary of the Claimant’s position is detailed below.
Page 3 of 9
REF 20-01373
a.
The claim of the Claimant
4.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent persisted, throughout the duration of the
employment contract, in not respecting its financial obligations, as the payment of the
agreed wages was irregular.
5.
In this sense, the Claimant was not able to track correctly the due monthly wages nor the
missing amounts corresponding to each due wage.
6.
In view of the above, the Claimant requested the payment by the Respondent of the
following amounts:
EUR 33,500 as overdue payments until 31 May 2020,
EUR 40,000 as overdue salaries for having played 2 further months beyond the
fixed contractual end date (i.e. July and August 2020),
5% interest p.a. as of the due dates until the effective day of payment.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
7.
First of all, the DRC Judge analysed whether he 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
September 2020 and submitted for decision on 24 March 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.
8.
Subsequently, the DRC Judge 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. a) and b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), he is competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Jamaican player and a Turkish club.
9.
Subsequently, the DRC Judge 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 (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 September 2020, the August 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
Page 4 of 9
REF 20-01373
b.
Burden of proof
10.
The DRC Judge 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 Judge stressed
the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
11.
In this respect, the DRC Judge 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.
12.
Merits of the dispute
His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he 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
13.
The foregoing having been established, the DRC Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and took note of the fact that the Claimant’s claim pertains to outstanding
remuneration. In this regard, the Claimant explained that the Respondent had persistently
failed to pay his remuneration and had proceeded to some random payments. As such, the
Claimant could not identify to which salaries the outstanding remuneration should be
allocated, but alleged that, upon expiry of the contract, the Respondent still owed him EUR
33,500. Equally, the Claimant alleged that he was entitled to two months’ salary in light of
the fact that the season was extended.
14.
Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, failed to
present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In
this way, the DRC judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and
thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
15.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred
that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he 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.
Page 5 of 9
REF 20-01373
16.
Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, as
well as the fact that the Respondent had not contested the allegations of the Claimant, the
DRC judge concluded that the latter had substantiated his claim pertaining to outstanding
remuneration with sufficient documentary evidence.
17.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the
Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 33,500.
18.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of
pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant salaries in the total amount
of EUR 33,500.
19.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the
Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 33,500 as from the day following the expiry
of the contract, i.e. as of 1 June 2020 until the date of effective payment.
20.
In continuation, the DRC Judge addressed the Claimant’s claim for EUR 40,000 corresponding
to two months’ salary for June and July 2020. In this regard, the DRC Judge noted that such
claim was not substantiated by any evidence. In particular, the Claimant did not produce any
agreement between the parties, according to which their employment relationship would have
been extended by two months.
21.
In view of the above, the DRC Judge decided to reject the claim for an additional EUR 40,000
in light of a lack of contractual basis.
22.
The DRC Judge therefore established that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
23.
Finally, taking into account the consideration under number 9. above, the DRC Judge
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.
24.
In this regard, the DRC 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 and for the
maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
25.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC Judge 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, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent,
provided that the decision is final and binding, a ban from registering any new players,
Page 6 of 9
REF 20-01373
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.
26.
The DRC Judge recalled that the above-mentioned bans 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.
27.
Lastly, the DRC Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 7 of 9
REF 20-01373
IV. DECISION OF THE Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Deveer Akeem Orgill, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, MKE Ankaragucu Spor Kulubu, has to pay to the Claimant, the following
amount:
EUR 33,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
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.
5.
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).
6.
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.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
REF 20-01373
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 9 of 9