Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13212
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 March 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Mahamadou Souley Salamoun
BY:
Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil), Deputy Chairperson
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
Mahamadou Souley Salamoun, Niger
Represented by MIG-Mak International Group
RESPONDENT:
Katsina United FC, Nigeria
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13212
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 19 July 2023, the Nigerien player Mahamadou Souley Salamoun (hereinafter: Claimant
or player) and the Nigerian club Katsina United (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded
an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signature until
the end of the season 2024/2025 (cf. TMS: 30 June 2025).
2.
According to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of NGN 400,000 (Nigerian Naira).
3.
Furthermore, pursuant to the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a
sign-on fee of NGN 1,500,000 as follows:
-
50% before the start of the season 2023/2024;
30% at the start of the season 2024/2025;
20% at the start of the second half of the season 2024/2025.
4.
Allegedly at the end of August 2023, the Respondent allegedly informed the Claimant to
cease training as his performance was insufficient, and consequently his services were no
longer needed.
5.
On 12 September 2023, the Claimant allegedly sent a letter to the Respondent requesting
an explanation as to the contractual situation and whether a mutual termination of the
Contract could be discussed.
6.
On 13 November 2023, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Nigerien club
AS Garde Nationale de Niger (hereinafter: the New Club) valid as from the date of signature
until the end of the season 2023/2024 (hereinafter: the New Contract).
7.
In accordance with the New Contract, the New Club undertook to pay the Claimant a
monthly salary of FCFA 175,000 and a signature bonus of FCFA 600,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 20 January 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
9.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent terminated the Contract without just cause, due
to the Claimant’s alleged poor performance.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13212
10. The Claimant described that the Respondent had abruptly told him to cease attending
training sessions as his services were no longer needed, preventing him from carrying out
his contractual duties and thus constituting a severe breach of contract.
11. The Claimant specified that he had requested a reconsideration of his contractual situation
or a mutual settlement agreement, to no avail.
12. The Claimant, thus, argued that he is entitled to compensation, and requested
NGN 11,100,000 as compensation, corresponding to the purported value of the entire
Contract, as well as interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2023.
b. Position of the Respondent
13. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide a position to the
claim.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13212
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. 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 20 January 2024 and submitted
for decision on 7 March 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.
15. 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players February 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 a Nigerien player
and a Nigerian club.
16. 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 Players (February 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 January 2024, the May 2023 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
18. 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
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13212
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the basis of the present dispute concerned the
lawfulness of the contractual termination by the Respondent.
20. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine whether the
Respondent had indeed been in breach of the Contract as alleged, subsequently whether
it had terminated the Contract without just cause, and lastly what the consequences of
such purported unlawful termination may be.
21. Prior to entering the analysis of the matter at hand, the Chamber firstly recalled the
submissions of the parties. On one hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant alleged
that the Respondent had verbally informed the Claimant that his performance was
insufficient and that he was no longer desired at the club.
22. On the other hand, the Respondent failed to provide a position to the claim, and thus
contest the allegations of the Claimant.
23. Notwithstanding the lack of a reply by the Respondent, the Chamber wished to emphasise
that the Claimant was subject to the principle enshrined in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, according to which he bore the burden of proving the veracity of any alleged fact
that he wished to base his claim on.
24. Having said this, the Chamber moved on to consider the case as to its merits, and was
firstly able to recall that the existence of the Contract remained undisputed, based on the
fact that a copy signed by both parties had been submitted to the file.
25. However, beyond this the circumstances surrounding the parties’ contractual relationship
were less clear, as the Chamber went on to determine.
26. From the Claimant’s submission, the Chamber was able to take note of two key events
which purportedly took place between the parties and that could be used to elucidate the
circumstances in which the Contract may have been departed from.
27. On one hand, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Respondent allegedly informed
the Claimant that he was no longer desired at the club due to his underwhelming sporting
performance.
28. In this respect, the Chamber was unable to link such allegation to any corroborating
evidence on file, and noted that there was never a formal / written termination notice
communicated to the Claimant.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13212
29. Equally, the Chamber observed that the Claimant allegedly sent the Respondent a letter on
12 September 2023 in which he requested an explanation as to such alleged termination
and whether a mutual termination could be discussed, as opposed to a unilateral and
abrupt termination.
30. However, the Chamber deemed it noteworthy that the above letter was only submitted as
a PDF copy to the file, and that there was no proof of remittance (such as an accompanying
email) to suggest that this letter had actually been successfully communicated to the
Respondent.
31. In this respect, the Chamber wished to highlight that, particularly as this was the only piece
of corroborating evidence submitted by the Claimant in respect of the alleged events, the
fact that there was no proof of remittance on file made it impossible to determine whether
the Respondent had been effectively warned about its alleged conduct, let alone to prove
any wrongdoing or a de facto termination of the Contract had been committed.
32. The Chamber at this point recalled that a premature contractual termination may only be
an ultima ratio measure, which arises when the counterparty- has committed either a very
serious or consistent / repeated breach of contract. In the case at hand, the Claimant failed
to meet the burden of proving that the Respondent had even terminated the Contract at
all – let alone that it had done so without just cause (cf. art. 13 par. 5 PR).
33. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Contract could only be held to have been
terminated at the point when the Claimant had subsequently entered into the New
Contract with the New Club.
34. In light of such conclusion, and given that neither party subsequently raised any objection
as to the discontinuation of the Contract, the Chamber concluded that the Contract had
been mutually departed from at the point when the Claimant signed the New Contract –
i.e. on 13 November 2023.
ii. Consequences
35. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such conclusion.
36. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 4 monthly
salaries between the date of signature and November 2023 and the first instalment of 50%
of the signature bonus under the Contract, amounting to NGN 2,350,000.
37. The Chamber hereby recalled that the non-payment of the player’s remuneration leading
up to said date remained uncontested, not least based on the lack of a reply by the
Respondent.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13212
38. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e.
NGN 2,350,000.
39. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 14 November 2023 until the date of
effective payment.
40. Lastly, and recalling that the Contract had been mutually departed from simultaneously
with the date of signature of the New Contract, the Chamber decided that no compensation
could be awarded in the matter at hand.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
41. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 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.
42. 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.
43. 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. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
44. 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.
45. 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. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13212
d. Costs
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13212
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mahamadou Souley Salamoun, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Katsina United FC, must pay to the Claimant NGN 2,350,000 as
outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 November 2023 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. 10
REF. FPSD-13212
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 11