Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-7788
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 March 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Saanto
Ampntel Salam Fouflias
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Peter Lukasek (Slovakia), Member
Laurel Vaurasi (Fiji), Member
CLAIMANT:
Saanto Ampntel Salam Fouflias, Greece and Palestine
Represented by CSS Sports Consultancy
RESPONDENT:
Almasry F.C., Egypt
Represented by Sport Makers
Page 2
REF FPSD-7788
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Egyptian club, Almasry F.C. (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent) issued a letter addressed to the company Black Stars Mama Africa
(hereinafter: the Company) regarding the potential hiring of the Greek and Palestinian
player, Saanto Ampntel Salam Fouflias (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant). Such letter
stated as follows:
“Subject:
Regarding the player Saadu Samir Saadu Abdassalam, born on 23/11/1997, of
Palestine nationality, holder of Passport No. (5678749) and his authorization for your
prestigious Company to finalize the procedures of negotiating with the Al-Masry Club
regarding the transfer of the player to Al-Masry Club as free transfer.
A free transfer offer:
We present you to your Excellency an offer to transfer the player Saadu Samir Saadu
Abdassalam – free transfer – to Al-Masry Club for three seasons starting from the sports
season 2022/2023 up to the season of 2024/2025 in the following way:
1. Net amount of USD one hundred thousand for the 2022/2023 Season.
2. Net amount of USD one hundred twenty thousand USD for the 2023/2024 Season.
3. Net amount of USD one hundred fifty thousand USD for the 2024/2025 Season.
With much respect and appreciation”.
2.
According to the club, the Company held the “official authorization” to negotiate on behalf
of the player.
3.
On 27 August 2022, the Company replied to the abovementioned letter and set out the
financial conditions to be offered to the player in case it was the club’s intention to hire
his services. Per such letter, the employment agreement would be valid as from 1
September 2022 until 30 July 2025, and the player would be entitled to a sign-on fee of
USD 50,000, besides of a higher salary then the one proposed by the club in addition to
flight tickets and sporting bonuses.
4.
On 6 September 2022, the club sent an invitation to the player stating as follows: “we invite
you to come to Egypt to conduct a medical examination and conduct negotiations in
preparation for contracting with you after agreement and passing you the medical
examination” (hereinafter: the Invitation).
5.
On 12 September 2022, the player flew from Athens, Greece to Cairo, Egypt.
Page 3
REF FPSD-7788
6.
On 15 or 16 September 2022, the player and the club signed an employment contract
dated 15 September 2022 and valid for the 2022/2023 season (hereinafter: the
Employment Contract).
7.
A copy of the Employment Contract was submitted by the club, but it was partially
challenged by the player who argued that the document on file is incomplete and the
original agreement was withheld by the club in order to mislead the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC).
8.
Under the Employment Contract, the club allegedly undertook to pay the player a total
remuneration of USD 75,000 for the 2022/2023 season, payable in 10 instalments of USD
7,500, the first one due on 15 October 2022 and the following 9 on the same day of the
subsequent months.
9.
In the field for additional provisions included in the Employment Contract, the parties
stipulated the following (in handwritten form):
“1. The player agreed to the team’s financial regulations for the 2022/2023 season,
which are part of this contract.
2. The player has the right to get amount of 25 Thousand US dollars according to the
percentage of his participation with the club in the official matches according to the
provisions of the regulations provided that the player’s minimum participation in 50%
of the season’s matches otherwise he is not entitled to this amount.
3. The player gets an amount of 3333 US dollars including taxes which is paid according
to the final ranking of the team in the league.
4. The club shall provide the player with suitable accommodation.
5. The player is entitled to two airlike tickets during the season.
6. The present contract may be extended by the club for an additional two (2) season
by paying a total amount of USD 166,666 (one hundred sixty-six thousand, six hundred
and sixty-six dollars) for the season 2023/2024 and paying a total amount of USD
200,000 (two hundred thousand dollars) in condition for the season 2024/2025. The
activation of the extension should be notified to the player before one month at least
prior to the end of each season, with a player written consent. The payments stated in
this clause shall be paid according to provisions of the club’s internal regulations and
the present employment contract.
7. In the event that the player does not comply with his duties towards the club, the
terms of the club’s internal regulations shall be applied.
Page 4
REF FPSD-7788
8. The present contract is considered a final and binding agreement between both
parties, and all previous negotiations, offer, and agreements are revoked.
9. In the case of violating any clause of the present contract or terminating it prior to
its expiry date for any reason whether with or without just cause, the terminating or
violating party shall pay an amount of USD 15,000 (fifteen thousand dollars) as a fair
compensation to the other party.
10. The two parties agreed that all amounts mentioned in the contract shall be paid in
the currency of Egypt (Egyptian Pound) equivalent to the value of the dollar in Egyptian
Pounds at the time of payment”.
10. Between 15 and 25 September 2022, the player was included in the attendance league
for a pre-season camp together with his teammates, taken place in the Movembeck Hotel
in Cairo.
11. The parties have different narrative on the events taken place after the signature of the
Employment Contract:
•
According to the player, he was suddenly requested to leave the hotel and the
country, without previous warning and/or further explanations; and
•
According to the club, the player was the one to suddenly decide to leave the
country and travel without authorization.
12. No evidence was provided by any of the parties in connection to the above.
13. The player informed that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
employment relationship with the club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 6 October 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of the player
15. According to the player, following the receipt of the Invitation by the club, he travelled to
Egypt, underwent medical examinations, and signed an employment contract valid for 3
seasons, the copies of which were withheld by the club.
Page 5
REF FPSD-7788
16. Nevertheless, the player pointed out that without previous notice he was requested to
leave his hotel and “intimidated” until he returned to his home country. Consequently, he
claimed having suffered financial and moral damages that should be compensated by the
club.
17. On 10 October 2022, the player was invited to complete his claim in line with art. 18, par.
1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal.
18. On 13 October 2022, the player submitted additional documents to the consideration of
the FIFA general secretariat.
19. On the same date, i.e., 13 October 2022, the FIFA general secretariat requested the player
to provide further information regarding his requests for relief in front of the FIFA DRC
and, in particular, the amount in dispute. At first, he was requested to submit such
information within the same deadline previously granted i.e., 14 October 2022.
Nevertheless, and upon request for extension by the player, such time limit was extended
until 18 October 2022.
20. On 17 and 18 October 2022, the player filed the additional information requested by the
FIFA general secretariat. In particular, the updated request for relief of the player were as
follows, quoted verbatim:
“- We ask FIFA and the Players' Status department to consider this issue of Al-Masry Club
disrespect to the clients of the player Saanto Ampntel Salam for the loss of his
profession this season.
- We demand payment of the financial dues agreed upon in the contract between the
club and the player, this agreement is written in an official letter by the President of the
Club.
- We want to send an enquiry to Al-Masry Club why he terminated the contract of the
player Saanto Ampntel without reasons because the player does not have the lowest
problem that was technical, moral or medical”.
21. The player furthermore alleged that the financial conditions established in such
employment contract were the following:
“- Current type paid in US dollars
- Season (2022/2023) the club must pay to player 100,000 USD and the player take 50%
of the amount of 100, thousand dollars. The player receives after signing the contract
an amount of 50 thousand dollars and the remainder of the amount is paid on monthly
salaries until the end of the season
Page 6
REF FPSD-7788
- Season (2023/2024) the club must pay to player 120,000 USD and pays him 50% of
the total amount 120,000 USD. This receives the player 60,000 USD and the remainder
of the amount is paid on monthly salaries until the end of the season
- Season (2024/2025) the club must pay to player 150,000 USD and pays him 50% of
the total amount 150,000 USD. This receives the player 75,000 USD and the remainder
of the amount is paid on monthly salaries until the end of the season
The total contract for three seasons in 370,000 USD”.
b. Reply of the club
22. On 20 November 2022, the club filed its reply to the claim of the player.
23. Initially, the club challenged the admissibility of the claim by arguing that it was not timely
completed by the player cf. art. 18 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal. Thus, it argued that the claim should be “rejected and set aside”.
24. As to the substance of the matter, the club confirmed having entered into an Employment
Contract with the player valid for the 2022/2023 season with the option of being extended
until 2025 (i.e., for two extra seasons). What is more, it argued that such contract was valid
and binding to the parties and it superseded any previous agreement that could possibly
exist between them, such as the letter of 10 August 2022 and the Invitation.
25. Despite acknowledging the signature of the Employment Contract, the club disputed the
player’s narrative on its termination. Accordingly, the club underlined that the player did
not advance any evidence in this respect and could not demonstrate that their
employment relationship was terminated on the club’s initiative. On the contrary, the club
stressed that it was the player who “breached his contractual obligations when he
disappeared and left the club without notification” on 6 October 2022, therefore terminating
the Employment Contract without just cause.
26. Furthermore, the club explained that the termination by the player did not fulfill the
criteria of art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP),
insofar as no default notice was ever sent and it happened before any of the salaries of
the player fell due. As such, the club insisted that no just cause existed.
27. In light of the above, the requests of relief of the club were the following, quoted verbatim:
“1) To reject the Claimant’s Claim from the formal aspect as he failed to respect the
FIFA’s Procedural Rules in particular article 11 and 18 par.1.
2) To reject the Claimant’s Claim from the merits.
Page 7
REF FPSD-7788
3) To confirm that the player has no and not entitled to any outstanding salaries as he
didn't provide his services to the Club and he considered terminated the Contract on 6
October 2022.
3) To decide on the request of the Player that the Employment Contract dated 15
September 2022 has been terminated without just cause by him on 26 September 2022
by leaving the Respondent without prior authorization and definitely on the latest by
submitting a claim to FIFA on 06 October 2022 without prior notification in express
violation to article 14 bis of FIFA RSTP.
4) Alternatively, in case the Honorable Chamber does not agree with our arguments
and considers that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause, to decide he is
not entitled to any compensation due to his breach or to mitigate the compensation in
light of his breaches.
5) in all cases, if any compensation be decided to the Player it shall be according to
article 6 para 9 of the Employment Contract shall be applied and ruled this dispute, an
amount of maximum USD 15,000-/ to be paid to the Claimant as fair and agreed
compensation.
6)To condemn the Player to pay all expenses and costs of the present proceedings, if
any”.
28. The club did not lodge a counterclaim against the player.
c. Rejoinder of the player
29. On 9 December 2022, the player filed his rejoinder on this matter.
30. Initially, the player opposed to the club’s position as to the inadmissibility of the claim and
recalled the deadline extension granted by the FIFA general secretariat on 13 October
2022. As such, he claimed that the claim was fully admissible.
31. As to the substance, the player argued that the copy of the Employment Contract filed by
the club together with its claim was not complete as it did not include the terms and
conditions applicable for the 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 football seasons. Consequently,
the document submitted by the club was misleading and it was acting in bad faith by
withholding the accurate information i.e., the one mentioned in the letter of 10 August
2022.
32. In addition, the player disputed the club’s allegations as to his breach of contract. In this
regard, he reiterated that he was evicted from his hotel and did not have any other option
rather than returning to his home country. In support of his allegations, the player
referred to messages allegedly exchanged via the electronic application WhatsApp
Page 8
REF FPSD-7788
between his agent and a club representative – however without proper identification of
such parties and/or explanation as to its content.
33. In conclusion, the player argued that the club violated art. 14 of the FIFA RSTP as it
terminated the Employment Contract without just cause. Therefore, he reiterated his
request to be provided with compensation for breach of contract amounting to USD
370,000 i.e., the residual value of all the three seasons.
d. Final comments of the club
34. On 16 January 2023, the club final its final comments on this matter.
35. Firstly, the club highlighted that the player could not substantiate his position that the
copy of the Employment Contract on file was not complete. As such, it insisted that: (i) the
letters exchanged between the parties (the Company included) were part of negotiations,
hence without any legal effect; and (ii) the Employment Contract on file included the final
agreement reached between the parties and was valid and binding to them.
36. Subsequently, the club insisted on its version of the facts connected to the termination of
the Employment Contract: the player suddenly left the country and without permission,
hence breaching their contractual relationship. It referred to the jurisprudence of the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on the topic and alleged that the player could not
prove by any means that any fault on the club’s existed.
37. Based on the foregoing, the club reiterated its request for the claim of the player be
dismissed.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Admissibility of the claim
38. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether the claim at hand is admissible.
39. As a departure point, the Chamber took note that the present matter was presented to
FIFA on 6 October 2022 and submitted for decision on 2 March 2023. Taking into account
the wording of art. 34 of the October 2022 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.
40. Thereafter, the DRC noted that the club challenged the admissibility of the claim based
on the player’s alleged failure to complete his claim in line with art. 18 of the Procedural
Rules.
Page 9
REF FPSD-7788
41. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 18 par. 2 as well as art.
23 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules it is for the FIFA general secretariat to assess whether a
claim is complete, and to request any additional information at any time during a
proceeding, without any need to specify a reason for any such request. As such, the DRC
deemed that the club’s challenge in this regard was already groundless.
42. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC also found it noteworthy that on 13 October 2022
the player was provided with a deadline extension to complete his claim, which he did on
time. A copy of the correspondence sent by the FIFA general secretariat was shared with
the club for information purposes. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the club’s
objection in this respect, from every angle, should be rejected.
b. Jurisdiction and applicable legal framework
43. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber 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 FIFA RSTP (October 2022 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 a Greek and Palestinian player and an
Egyptian club.
44. Finally, 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 FIFA RSTP (October 2022 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged
on 6 October 2022, the July 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations)
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
c. Burden of proof
45. The Chamber 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 Chamber 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
46. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
Page 10
REF FPSD-7788
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
47. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that it pertains to a claim for breach of contract lodged
by the player against the club.
48. In particular, the DRC acknowledged that the player claims to be entitled to USD 370,000
as compensation for the premature and unlawful termination of their employment
relationship by the club. On the other hand, the club challenged the player’s narrative on
the termination and stressed that no monies were due.
49. On this note, the Chamber determined that it was for the player (as the party claiming
compensation for breach of contract) to demonstrate that (i) there was an employment
relationship between the parties; and (ii) such employment relationship was terminated
– by either of the parties – on the club’s fault (cf. art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
50. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC observed that most of the allegations of the parties
is not corroborated by documentary evidence and is also challenged by the counterparty.
As such, the Chamber pointed out that the factual background of the case could barely
be reconstructed, hence it leaves room for different interpretations.
51. Having carefully analysed the case file, the Chamber was mindful of the following:
Undisputed facts
Controverted facts
According to the player the parties agreed
upon the financial conditions of their
The parties exchanged correspondences in
August 2022 regarding a potential
employment relationship. In such
opportunity, the player confirmed that he
was represented by the Company.
employment contract and were therefore
bounded to such agreement.
According to the club there was never a final
agreement between the parties during the
negotiation-phase, entailing that their consent
is only clear and unequivocal insofar as it was
materialized in the Employment Contract
The terms and conditions of the Employment
On 15 or 16 September 2022 the parties
Contract.
signed the Employment Contract valid (at
The club submitted the copy of the document
least) until the end of the 2022/2023
that it deems to be valid and binding to the
season.
parties, however the player argued that such
file was incomplete. He however does not
Page 11
REF FPSD-7788
bear his own copy of the document, which
was allegedly withheld by the club.
According to the player, he was evicted from
his hotel and forced to leave the country,
Despite the formal signature of the
Employment Contract, it did not de facto
come into force. On the contrary, the
player returned to Greece.
hence the club terminated their employment
relationship without just cause.
According to the club, the player suddenly left
the country without permission, therefore he
was the one to terminate their employment
relationship without just cause.
52. While considering the above, whereas the members of the Chamber were convinced that
an employment relationship between the parties existed, they could neither establish its
exact figures nor the whereabouts of its termination. On the contrary, the parties
concurred that the services were never properly rendered by the player because he
subsequently (and on an unspecified date) returned to his home country for a reason that
is also unknown i.e., in the player’s view because he was forced to do so, whereas in the
club’s view, at his own initiative and without permission.
53. The Chamber also highlighted that there is not a single piece of evidence on file regarding
the alleged breach and/or termination by any of the parties. Additionally, it is also
impossible to establish when the player left the country, or if the club incurred in any type
of abusive behaviour towards him, such as suggested in his statement of claim. Likewise,
the DRC also found it decisive that none of the parties put the other in default at any
moment in time, as well as they did not advance any convincing documentation in this
connection. The only document advanced by the player on this topic was the extract of
WhatsApp conversation involving non-identified parties, which the DRC found to have
little, if any, evidentiary weight as to its content.
54. In conclusion, the DRC found that the parties did not produce any type of documentation
capable of demonstrating what happened after the signature of the contract in
September 2022 and until the submission of the claim at hand.
55. On top of the above, the Chamber was observant that the player challenged the copy of
the Employment Contract filed by the club, however he did also not provide his own
version of the document. He also failed to advance any proof of having ever requested
such document to the club, and he could not prove that his access to the information was
ever constrained.
56. Consequently, the DRC was of the opinion that – from the (lack of) documentation on file
– it could not be established to a comfortable satisfaction degree that a breach of contract
from the club’s side occurred, let alone that it was severe enough to trigger the
Page 12
REF FPSD-7788
consequences of a breach of contract. Put differently, the player could not corroborate
by any means his entitlement to any compensation.
57. Therefore, and in contrario sensu, the DRC decided that following the signature of a
contract between the parties, the player de facto terminated their relationship by
departing from the country by the latest in the end of September 2022 with no apparent
just cause.
58. It followed, in the Chamber’s view, that the player’s claim for compensation should be
rejected.
e. Costs
59. The Chamber 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were
to be imposed on the parties.
60. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
61. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-7788
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Saanto Ampntel Salam Fouflias, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 14
REF FPSD-7788
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).
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 16