Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15041
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 September 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Mohamed Ouattara
BY:
Sihon GAUCI (Malta)
CLAIMANT:
Mohamed Ouattara, Côte d'Ivoire
Represented by Iliass Segame
RESPONDENT:
Al Ain FC, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15041
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 8 August 2023, the Ivorian player, Mohamed Ouattara (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
Player), and the Saudi-Arabian club, Al Ain FC (hereinafter: the Respondent or the Club),
signed an employment contract (hereinafter: Contract) valid as from the date of the
signature until 7 July 2024.
2.
In article 5 of the Contract, the parties established the Player’s remuneration as follows:
“Article 5. Remuneration
5.1 Fixed monthly remuneration
The Club shall pay the following fixed monthly remuneration to the Player (net of any
taxes, bank fees and foreign exchange charges):
Payment type
Currency
Monthly Salary
Amount
7000$
08/08/2023 TO
07/07/2024
Total contract number
77000 $ USA
DOLLAR
The Club shall pay to the Player each monthly salary payment by the last day of each
month for a total of (TOTAL NUMBER OF MONTHS AS PER ART. 4.1].
5.2 Fixed financial payments
The Club shall pay the following fixed financial payments to the Player (net of any taxes,
bank fees and foreign exchange charges):
Payment
Currency
Amount
type
Signingon Fee 1
Payment
deadline
USD
13000$
on 31-102023
3.
On 12 August 2023, the Club paid the Player SAR 5,000 as part of the salary for August 2023.
This amount was equivalent to USD 1,333.33.
4.
On 12 September 2023, the Club paid the Player USD 3,000 as the salary for August 2023.
5.
On 12 November 2023, the Club paid the Player USD 6,000. The same day, the Club paid
the Player SAR 3,750 in cash as the remaining salary for September 2023. This amount was
equivalent to USD 1,000.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15041
6.
On 11 December 2023, the Club paid the Player USD 3,467 as part of the salary for October
2023. The same day, the Club paid the Player SAR 13,250 in cash as the remaining salary
for October 2023. This amount was equivalent to USD 3,533.33.
7.
On 4 January 2024, the Club paid the Player USD 7,000.
8.
On 21 March 2024, the Club paid the Player USD 5,000. The same day, the Club paid the
Player SAR 7,200 as the remaining salary for December 2023. This amount was equivalent
to USD 1,920.
9.
On 1 May 2024, the Club paid the Player USD 5,000. The same day, the Club paid the Player
SAR 7,500 in cash as part of the salary for January 2024. This amount was equivalent to USD
2,000.
10. On 30 May 2024, the Club paid the Player USD 14,000.
11. On 2 June 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
USD 13,000, which corresponded to the signing fee, and USD 28,000, which corresponded
to the salaries for February, March, April and May 2024. The Player granted the Club 14
days to remedy its default.
12. On 3 June 2024, the Claimant received CFA 8,278,280. According to the Player, this amount
was equivalent to USD 13,526.28.
13. On 3 July 2024, after the Player lodged the claim, the Club paid him USD 20,940.
14. On 5 August 2024, the Club paid the Player USD 13,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 26 June 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
16. According to the Claimant, the Club failed to pay him the salaries for April and May 2024,
of USD 7,000 each, and the signing fee of USD 13,000. Therefore, the Player argued that he
terminated the Contract with just cause on 18 June 2024, following his notice of default
sent on 2 June 2024.
17. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15041
“Consequently, the player has terminated the contract for just cause as of 18th June 2024,
and is then entitled to submit this claim and benefit from the following
compensation broken down as follows:
•Salaries for the months of April and May: 7000 x 2 = 14,000 US dollars plus 5% interest
p.a. as from the due dates until the date of effective payment
•Signing on-fee: 13.000 US Dollars plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due date
(31/10/2023) until the date of effective payment
•21.000 US dollars net as compensation for breach of contract cf. art. 17 of the
FIFA RSTP, corresponding to the residual value of the employment contract, plus 5%
interest p.a.as from the date of the termination until the date of effective payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent
18. According to the Respondent, the parties agreed to settle the matter before submitting its
response, by paying the total amount of USD 93,493 in 15 instalments. In this regard, the
Club stated that the last payment was made on 5 August 2024 and that the Club paid the
contractually agreed USD 90,000 plus USD 3,493 due to the parties’ settlement.
19. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“In this regard we emphasize our requests as follows:
1. In the light of all the above and also under consideration of the factual and legal
aspects as outlined in our present position we respectfully request the FIFA:
1. To accept the present Response; and
2. To accept the closure of the case regarding any outstanding financial matters
between Al Ain Club and the Player Mohamed Otawarra; and
3. To rule that the Player is not entitled to any remuneration or compensation.”
c. Reaction of the Claimant to the alleged payment
20. The Player denied having reached an agreement with the Club to settle the dispute but
acknowledged having received USD 87,193.66 out of the contractually agreed USD
90,000.
21. Thus, the Player amended his requests for relief, as follows:
“Subject to actual receipt of the latest amounts transmitted by the club, USD 2,806 in
outstanding salaries, plus 5% interest per annum from the due dates until the date of
effective payment;
USD 21,000 net as compensation for breach of contract pursuant to Article 17 of the
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), corresponding to the
residual value of the employment contract, plus 5% interest per annum from the date
of termination until the date of effective payment.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15041
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed whether she was
competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, she took note that the present
matter was presented to FIFA on 26 June 2024 and submitted for decision on 18 September
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.
23. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Ivorian player
and a Saudi-Arabian club.
24. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 June 2024, the June 2024 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
25. 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 she 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
26. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15041
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
27. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
this is a claim of a player against a club for breach of contract.
28. First, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract
with just cause due to outstanding remuneration.
29. Then, the Single Judge noted that, although the Respondent did not dispute that the Player
had just cause to terminate the Contract, it argued that, before the submission of the
response to the claim, the parties had reached a settlement. According to the Club’s
statement, it had paid the Player USD 93,493 in 15 instalments pursuant to the settlement
agreement the parties had allegedly reached.
30. The Single Judge also observed that the Player denied having reached an agreement with
the Club but acknowledged having received USD 87,193.66. Therefore, the Player amended
his request and now seeks payment of USD 2,806 as outstanding salaries plus USD 21,000
as compensation.
31. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that it is undisputed that the Club paid the Player
USD 87,193.66 out of the contractually agreed USD 90,000. In this context, the Single Judge
acknowledged that her task was to determine whether the Player had just cause to
terminate the Contract and, if so, what the consequences are.
32. The Single Judge noted that the Player sent a notice of default to the Club on 2 June 2024,
stating that it owed him the salaries for February, March, April, and May 2024, totalling USD
28,000, and the signing fee of USD 13,000. Additionally, the Player granted the Club 14 days
to comply with the payments, or he would terminate the Contract with just cause.
33. Then, the Single Judge took note that, on 3 June 2024, the Player received a payment made
by the Club on 30 May 2024, corresponding to two salaries. Nonetheless, according to the
Player, the Club did not pay the salaries for April and May and the signing fee, totalling USD
27,000. In this context, the Player argued that he terminated the Contract on 18 June 2024,
i.e., 15 days after sending the notice of default.
34. Notwithstanding this allegation, the Single Judge highlighted that the Player did not provide
any evidence showing that he actually terminated the Contract on 18 June 2024. Therefore,
and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Single Judge considered that the Player
terminated the Contract by lodging the claim on 26 June 2024, i.e., 24 days after sending
the notice of default.
35. Having stated the above, the Single Judge then pointed out that, although the Player
provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default and terminated the
Contract more than 15 days after sending the notice, he granted the Club 14 days instead
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15041
of the 15 days stipulated in art. 14bis par. 1. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the
requirements of art. 14bis were not met in the case at hand.
36. Without prejudice to the above, the Single Judge highlighted that, until the termination
date, the Player should have received USD 83,000 instead of the USD 53,253.66 that he
actually received, based on the evidence on file. The Single Judge noted that the USD
29,746.34 difference includes the salaries for April and May 2024, the signing fee, and other
minor discrepancies of USD 2,746.34 in previous salaries that were not claimed by the
Player in his notice of default, but which seem to have existed.
37. In this regard, the Single Judge remarked that (i) the amount owed to the Player when he
terminated the Contract was equivalent to more than four salaries and it represented
almost one-third of the total value of the Contract; (ii) the Player granted the Club 14 days
to remedy its default, and it only made a partial payment of USD 14,000, failing to pay the
additional USD 27,000 that were also requested; (iii) although the Player granted 14 days
instead of 15, he finally terminated the Contract 24 days after sending the notice, and the
Club, until that moment, was still in default of the requested USD 27,000; (iv) during the
entire Contract, the Club constantly failed to pay the salaries on time, committing several
breaches; and (v) the Club failed to pay the signing fee, which was almost equivalent to two
salaries, for more than seven months. Additionally, the Single Judge observed that the
Respondent did not dispute that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract but
only mentioned that all financial obligations had been fulfilled before submitting its
response to the claim.
38. Consequently, in the Single Judge’s view, the Player met his burden of proof to demonstrate
that the Club’s breach of the Contract was of a significant degree, and that the
circumstances at hand established, on one hand, that the termination was an ultima ratio
measure, and, on the other, that there was cause for the termination, vis-à-vis the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal. Hence, the Single Judge concluded that the Contract
was terminated by the Player with just cause.
39. Finally, the Single Judge went on to analyse whether the parties had settled the dispute
before the submission of the response to the claim, as alleged by the Club. In this respect,
the Single Judge pointed out that the Club did not provide any evidence with its response
to the claim that such a thing occurred.
ii. Consequences
40. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned her attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
41. In this regard, the Single Judge first recalled that, after the termination of the Contract, the
Club paid the Player USD 20,940 on 3 July 2024 and USD 13,000 on 5 August 2024. These
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15041
payments were acknowledged by the Player, who amended his claim and now requests
payment of USD 2,806 as outstanding remuneration and USD 21,000 as compensation.
42. Additionally, the Single Judge pointed out that the parties strongly disputed the amount
that was paid to the Player. In this regard, and based on the evidence on file, the Single
Judge considered that the Player received USD 87,193.66.
43. Regarding the outstanding remuneration, the Single Judge recalled that by the date of the
termination, the Player was entitled to receive USD 29,746.34 as outstanding
remuneration. Additionally, since the termination was on 26 June 2024, and following the
standard practice of the Football Tribunal, the salary for June shall also be considered
outstanding. Consequently, the Single Judge stated that, when the Player terminated the
Contract, he was entitled to receive USD 36,746.34 as outstanding remuneration.
44. Nonetheless, as the Club paid the Player USD 33,940 after the termination, this amount
shall be deducted from the outstanding salaries. Therefore, the Single Judge observed that
the outstanding remuneration amounts to USD 2,806.34. However, the Player requested
USD 2,806 as outstanding remuneration in his last requests for relief.
45. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda
and ne ultra petita, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the
Claimant USD 2,806 as outstanding remuneration.
46. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 26 June 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
47. 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.
48. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15041
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
49. As a consequence, 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 Single Judge recalled that said provision provides
for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
50. 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. In this respect, the Single Judge
noted that the total value of the Contract was USD 90,000, with USD 13,000 corresponding
to the signing fee and USD 77,000 for the salaries, to be paid in eleven instalments of USD
7,000 from August to June by the end of each month. In this regard, the Single Judge noted
that on 26 June 2024 the only payment that could have been considered as the residual
value of the Contract was the salary for June. However, as the termination occurred on 26
June 2024, this salary was considered outstanding remuneration according to the standard
practice of the Football Tribunal.
51. Therefore, the Single Judge determined that, since the Player terminated the Contract
almost at the end of its term, there was no residual value left. Thus, the Single Judge
concluded that the Player is not entitled to compensation, as following the payment of the
outstanding remuneration, he will receive all the amounts that were contractually agreed
upon.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
52. 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 her 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.
53. 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.
54. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15041
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.
55. 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.
56. 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
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15041
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mohamed Ouattara, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Ain FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 2,806 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 June 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15041
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
..
pg. 13