Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2533
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed on 11 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Joseph Paintsil
COMPOSITION:
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Joseph Paintsil ,Ghana
Represented by Mark Afeeva
RESPONDENT:
MKE Anakaragucu ,Turkey
Page 2
REF FPSD-2533
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 1 September 2020, the Ghanaian player, Joseph Paintsil (hereinafter: Claimant), and the
Turkish club, MKE Anakaragucu (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract
valid as from the date of signing to 30 May 2021.
2.
In accordance with article 3 of the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay
to the Claimant as follows:
1.1. Guarantee Payments
The club shall pay to the Player basic wage of EUR 200,000 on 8 September 2020.
1.2. Additional Payments
EUR 200,000 shall be paid in 10 monthly instalments starting from 30 September 2020.
-EUR 20,000 on 30 September 2020,
-EUR 20,000 on 31 October 2020,
-EUR 20,000 on 30 November2020,
-EUR 20,000 on 31 December 2020,
-EUR 20,000 on 31 January2021,
-EUR 20,000 on 28 February2021,
-EUR 20,000 on 31 March 2021,
-EUR 20,000 on 30 April 2021,
-EUR 20,000 on 31 May2021,
-EUR 20,000 on 30 June2021.
1.3. Per Game Fee
The fee per match will be paid in the manner specified in the following conditions:
In the 2020-2021 season; the player will be paid a total of EUR 40,000, if the first 11 starts
in all matches in the League.
If the player does not play in the first 11 in all league matches, the fee for the match will be
calculated by dividing the total start-up fee by the total number of matches played in the
league in a season.
If the player takes part in the first eleven in league competitions, 100%, if he is in the game
afterwards, 75%, if he does not take part in the game despite being in a team of 21, 50%
per match fee is paid.
3.
On 15 April 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of his salaries in
the amount of EUR 102,000 and granted the Respondent until 23 April 2021 (8 days) to
comply with its financial obligations, however to no avail
Page 3
REF FPSD-2533
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
4.
On 29 April 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
5.
According to the Claimant, several payments that were due under the contract were not
made by the Respondent.
6.
The Claimant added that he sent out a default notice in this regard to the Respondent, to
no avail.
7.
The Claimant further submitted that the outstanding payments were as follows:
Month
September 2020
October 2020
November 2020
December 2020
January 2021
February 2021
March 2021
April 2021
May 2021
Amount due as of April 2021
Amount due as of 31 May 2021
Total amount received
Total sum due as of April 2021
Total sum due as of 31 May 2021
Payment
due in EUR
220,000 plus
10,000 for
rent
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
370,000
390,000
Payment received in
EUR
200,000
0
3,000
40,000
0
25,000
0
0
0
268,000
102,000
122,000
8.
Additionally, the Claimant submitted that he did not receive his appearance fees as
contractually agreed. According to the Claimant, he participated in 11 starting appearances
(EUR 1,000 per appearance) and 9 substitute appearances (EUR 750 per appearance) and 0
first squad appearances (non-playing). As a result, he submitted that he is entitled to EUR
30,750 in appearance fees.
9.
In summary, the Claimant submitted that he is entitled to EUR 122,000 as outstanding
remuneration and EUR 30,750 as appearance fees.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2533
b.
Position of the Respondent
10.
Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
11. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC 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 29 April 2021 and submitted for
decision on 11 August 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 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.
12. Subsequently, the DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Ghanaian player and
a Turkish club.
13. 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 29 April 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
14. 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.
15. 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.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2533
c.
Merits of the dispute
16. The competence of the DRC Judge 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
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The foregoing having been established, the DRC Judge moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to
the Claim and that therefore the claim of the Claimant remained uncontested.
18. Consequently, the DRC Judge deemed that the Respondent had renounced to its right of
defence and, thus, had accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
19. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the members of the Chamber
concurred that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be
taken upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements
and documents presented by the Claimant.
20. With the above in mind, 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 the amounts which were
(uncontestably) outstanding under the contract.
21. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant is therefore in principle entitled
to outstanding remuneration.
ii. Consequences
22. Having stated the above, the DRC Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
23. Taking into account the fact that the claim remained uncontested by the Respondent and the
contents of the contract between the parties, the DRC Judge decided that based on the
documentation and arguments provided by the Claimant, as well as based on the principle of
pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent shall pay EUR 122,000 as outstanding remuneration to
the Claimant.
24. Additionally, the DRC Judge noted that the Claimant submitted sufficient evidence to prove
that he was entitled to appearances fees in the amount of EUR 30,750 and that this amount
Page 6
REF FPSD-2533
also remained uncontested by the Respondent. As a result, the DRC Judge decided that the
Respondent shall also pay said amount to the Claimant.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
25. Finally, taking into account the above, the DRC Judge 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.
26. 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. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
27. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
28. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Registration Form, which is attached to the present
decision.
29. The DRC 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. 24bis par. 8
of the Regulations.
d.
Costs
30. The DRC Judge 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 DRC Judge decided that no procedural costs
were to be imposed on the parties.
31. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the DRC Judge recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded
in these proceedings.
32. Lastly, the DRC Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2533
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER (DRC)
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Joseph Paintsil, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, MKE Anakaragucu, has to pay to the Claimant, EUR 122,000 as outstanding
remuneration.
3.
The Respondent has to pay the Claimant EUR 30,750 as appearance fees.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account set out in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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:
JUDGE
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8
REF FPSD-2533
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