Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2420
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 08 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Oudi
Khader Salem Al Qara
COMPOSITION:
HENDEL, Clifford J. (USA/France), Deputy Chairperson
KASALO, Tomislav (Croatia), member
DE JONG, Daan (The Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Oudi Khader Salem Al Qara, Jordan
Represented by Emar Hanayneh
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
Sahab, Jordan
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Dhofar, Oman
Represented by Nasr Eldin Azzam
Page 2
REF FPSD-2420
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 23 November 2020, the Jordanian player Oudi Khader Salem Al Qara (hereinafter: the
Player) and the Omani club Dhofar (hereinafter: Dhofar) signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid from1 December 2020 until “the end of the sports season
2020/2021 at 30 June 2021”.
2.
Art. 2 of the Contract states as follows:
"the [Player] accepts playing with the first football team at Dhofar Club for a fee of USD
65,000 payable to the [Player] is the provider of a contract of USD 15,000 at the signing of
the contract and the amount of USD 15,000 participation rate is calculated at the end of the
season, provided that the Player has participated in 70% of the total number League and Cup
matches and enter into 18 players in the formation of matches and the remaining amount of
USD 35,000 only divided by Seven months by USD 5,000 monthly Salary after signing the
Contact”.
3.
Art. 7 of the Contract stated as follows:
“[Dhofar] is obligated to provide a ticket for himself, his wife and two children (Amman,
Jordan Sala/ah, Amman, Jordan) on any airline for one time only".
4.
On 4 April 2021, the Oman Football Association (hereinafter: OFA) decided to cancel the
Omani League for the season 2020/2021 with retroactive effect from 1 April 2021.
5.
On 8 April 2021, the Player returned to his home country (Jordan).
6.
On 12 April 2021, Dhofar sent a notice to the Player in which it inter alia requested him to
“return to the Sultanate immediately to terminate the correlation, receive your rights and sign
the clearance”. Furthermore, Dhofar stated that the Player was going to be punished by
depriving the reward of His Majesty the Sultan's championship bonus, amounting to USD
5,000.
7.
On 15 April 2021, the Player sent a notice to Dhofar in response to the previous
correspondence. In this notice, the Player requested outstanding salaries until the date of
suspension of the league i.e. 1 April 2021, and requested the costs of flying tickets and
compensation. In total, the Player requested USD 66,741 to be paid within a deadline of 10
days.
8.
On 18 April 2021, the OFA contacted the Player informing him that Dhofar had filed a
complaint against him in front of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the OFA (“OFA DRC”)
and granted him deadline of 20 days to file his position.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2420
9.
On 19 April 2021, Dhofar sent a notice to the Player stating inter alia that “According to the
Article I 77 of the Omani Civil Code and what FIFA has previously established in its decisions
in this regard, the club officially suspends the terms of the work contract until the sporting
activity is restored again”. Furthermore, Dhofar requested the Player to return to Oman in
order to receive his dues.
10. On 20 April 2021, Dhofar sent a letter to the Player inviting him “to attend an investigation
before the Disciplinary Committee in the club. on Thursday. April 22. 2021. at twelve o'clock
in the afternoon. to hear you about the violations attributed to you”.
11. On the same date, the Player replied to the previous correspondence from Dhofar contesting
the amount he was entitled to, contesting the competence of the OFA DRC and rejecting the
retaliatory measures taken by Dhofar against him.
12. On 23 April 2021, the Jordanian club Sahab (hereinafter: Sahab) contacted Dhofar in order
confirm that the Contract had expired.
13. According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and provided
by the Player, he signed an employment contract with Sahab (hereinafter: the Sahab contract)
on 24 April 2021. The International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was requested on the same day
and it was delivered on 29 April 2021 after the Player was de-registered with OFA. Dhofar
did not contest the issuance of the ITC.
14. According to Clause 19 of the Sahab contract, the Player is entitled to receive from Sahab the
amount of Jordanian Dinar (JOD) 1,330.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 30 April 2021, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
16. According to the Player, Dhofar provided him a bank cheque on 24 February 2021 in the
amount of 4,990 Omani Rial which he was not able to cash due to alleged insufficient funds.
17. The Player states that “there is no dispute between the two parties that the Contract has
ended according to the Omani Association's decision of canceling the football season. Rather,
the dispute is limited to the Player’s financial rights”.
18. The Player states that he has participated in more than 70% of the matches, for the purposed
of the remuneration agreed in Clause 2 of the Contract.
19. The Player submitted the following request for relief:
Page 4
REF FPSD-2420
“According to the above the Player asking FIFA to condemn the Club the following:
1. To Stopping any procedures or complaints submitted by the club before the Omani
Disputes Resolution Chamber or any committee before the Oman Football Association, for
the reason FIFA DRC is the only Sole committee has the jurisdiction according to Art. 24 and
22 of FIFA RSTP.
2. To pay for the Player salaries of January. February and March 2021, 5000 USD each with
total value of 15,000 USD.
3. Signing fee of the Contract 15,000 USD due on signing date of the Contract 23 November
2020 according to term 2 of the Contract.
4. To pay 5,000 USD bonus of wining the Sultan of Oman Tournament according to the term
2 of the Contract which the Club deprived the player from it with the Club decision dated on
12 April 2021.
5. Airplane tickets 1,560 USD and Covid_19 tests (PCR) 104+79 with total value of 1,743 USD
according to the Art. 7 of the Contract.
6. By the Omani decision of canceling the Omani League season 2020/2021 the Player is
entitled to receiving a compensation until the end of the season the salaries of April. May and
lune 2021 valued 15000 USD (each 5000 USD) and 15000 USD for the reason of the 70%
participation in the official matches in which value of 30000 USO, according to Art, 17 of
FIFA RSTP.
7. According to the above the Player asking the Club to pay the amount of USD 66,743.”
b. Position of Dhofar
20. According to Dhofar, it was keen to pay the remaining dues of the month of January, February
and March 2021 as well as the remaining of signing fee. However, the Player acted in bad
faith.
21. Dhofar submits that the cheque was issued on 24 February 2021 and the Player only went to
receive the cheque value from the Club's bank and received a rejection on 8 April 2021.
22. Dhofar argues that “If the Player was to receive his dues in the month of February 2021 he
would have found the cheque accepted by the Bank since at the time (February 2021) the
Club bank account had enough money to cover the signing fee of the Player”.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2420
23. Dhofar states that on 8 April 2021, 4 days after OFA announced the cancelation of the Omani
League season 2020/2021, the Player, without a prior notice nor authorisation left the country
with his family to Jordan.
24. According to Dhofar, the decision according to which a fine was imposed on 12 April 2021
“was preliminary (not final)”.
25. Furthermore, Dhofar states that as it “was unable to reach an agreement with the Player and
pursuant to the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines issued in June 2020, the Club had unilaterally
suspended the New Contract until the competition is restored once again as was the case
during season 2019/2020”.
26. Dhofar submits that the Contract was due to finish on 30 June 2021 and not on 1 April as
alleged by the Player. In this regard, Dhofar submits that “FIFA DRC should not consider the
Contract to have been expired on 1 April 2021, rather it should consider that the Player had
automatically and unilaterally terminated the Contract in violation of the FIFA RSTP”.
27. In the view of Dhofar, “in order to consider that the Player had just cause to terminate, two
legal acts should have been implemented in a chronological order before the claim was
lodged:
-
act of warning
formal termination”
28. Dhofar believes that the unlawful de facto termination of the Contract occurred when the
Player had suddenly left Oman without any prior notice to nor authorisation on 8 April 2021.
29. In Dhofar’s view, “if FIFA DRC was to consider that the Player validly notified the Respondent
on 15 April 2021, it should not that he indicated only a 10-day time limit. Thus, according to
Dhofar the Claimant violated the legal procedures stated in RSTP and Swiss law, he acted in
bad faith and intended to deviate from the law by not reporting to the Club's premises to
receive his dues”.
30. Dhofar submits the player's refusal to receive his money, to report to the club's premises
when summoned and leaving without notice, constitute a breach of the Contract.
31. Dhofar argues that “after several correspondences with the Player's attorney, he was invited
on 20 April 2021 to a Disciplinary investigation whether in person or via video-conference to
explain himself. Neither the Player nor the Attorney showed to the investigation. shows the
bad intention of the Player”. Thus, in the view of Dhofar, the Player had waived his right to
be heard and consequently preliminary decision in regards to the sanctions imposed on the
Player shall be binding.
Page 6
REF FPSD-2420
32. Dhofar further submits that in the event that FIFA finds that the Player had just cause to
terminate the Contract and shall be entitled to compensation, the latter shall be mitigated.
33. According to Dhofar, “from the 11 Match Lists provided by the Player, one of the Match Lists
was not signed by the Match observer, hence it shall be automatically disregarded”.
34. Dhofar argues that “from the 18 total matches, the Player only provided evidence of having
participated in 10, which is less than the agreed 70%. Therefore, in the view of Dhofar the
FIFA DRC should not grant the player the participation rate value of USD 15,000”.
35. The requests for relief of Dhofar were the following:
“The Respondent kindly requests from FIFA DRC to decide as follows:
1. To fully reject the Player's claim lodged against the club
a. To rule that the Club shall not pay any amount whatsoever
2. To fully accept the Club's counter-claim and defences
a. To rule that the Player has terminated the contract without just cause
b. To rule that the Player acted in breach and in bad faith towards the Club
c. To declare the Player as well as his new club (Sahab club) jointly and severally liable to pay
65,000 USD as compensation for breach
d. To impose sporting sanctions on both the Player and the new club (Sahab Club)
3. Alternatively, in case FIFA DRC considers that the Player terminated for just cause, to rule
that neither the Claimant nor the Respondent shall pay compensation.
4. Alternatively, in case FIFA DRC considers that the Player terminated for just cause and that
he deserves to be awarded compensation, to mitigate the compensation:
a. To rule that the Player does not deserve the amounts corresponding to the flight tickets
and medical tests.
b. To rule that the Club shall not pay the Player the participation value of USD 15,000.
c. To rule that the Player does not deserve any amount after 1 April 2021, that he shall receive
only (4990 Omani Ryials + 15,000 USD) and bonus 5,000 USD (only in case FIFA DRC
disregarded the Disciplinary sanction concerning the deprivation of the Cup Bonus)
d. To further reduce any compensation awarded to the Player due to his bad faith towards
the Club.”
c. Player’s answer to the counterclaim
36. The Player argues that “Since the OFA’s decision to cancel the Omani season with effect from
1 April 2021, the Club has never required the Player to serve the remainder of the contract
Page 7
REF FPSD-2420
duration in Oman, and it was also understood that the football season was no longer
continuing. The Club did not ask the Player to stay in Oman at any time until the end of the
actual date (June 30, 2021)”.
37. In the Player’s view, Dhofar “only wanted that the Player waiver his remaining value of the
Contract and sign a financial clearance”.
38. The Player further submits that the Club insisted that “they will pay only the signing fee
contract and three-monthly salaries January, February and March 2021, also the Player should
sign a financial clearance, which means that the player waiver the remainder of the Contract
value (30,000 USD) plus Sultan Oman Cup bonus”.
39. Regarding the calculation of the Player’s participation in the matches, the Player states that it
“should only be calculated between 7 January 2021 (the Player's ITC received) until 1 April
2021 (the league cancelation by OFA). the player's participation should be at least in 9.1
matches (even the Player participated in all 13 matches but he only got 12 match lists out of
the 13) to let the Player be eligible to receiving 15,000 USD bonus as mentioned in Clause 2
of the Contract”.
40. The Player made the following requests:
“Dues
To paying the remaining value of the signing up fee of USD 12,977 which dues in the signing
date of the contract I/ 12/2020 (Clause 2 of the Contract).
To paying the monthly salaries of January, February and March 2021 of USD 15,000.
To paying the amount of USD 15,000 of the Player's participation in at least of 70% of the
matches.
To paying bonus of the Sultan Oman Cup the amount of USD 5,000.
To paying the expenses paid by the Player of Airplane tickets USD 1,560 and Covid_19 tests
(PCR) 104+79 USD with total value of USD 1,743 according to the Art. 7 of the Contract.
Compensation:
To compensating the player with an amount of 15,000 US dollars, which is the remaining
value of the Contract period of April. May and June 2021.
To paying an additional compensation in accordance with Article 17 of the RSTP for the
atrocious circumstances taken by the club against the player.
According to the above the total value of this claim USD 64,720 plus additional compensation
determined by the DRC.”
d. Sahab’s answer to the counterclaim
Page 8
REF FPSD-2420
41. Despite being invited to do so, Sahab failed to submit its position to FIFA.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
42. 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 30 April 2021 and submitted for decision
on 8 October 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 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 Jordanian player, a
Jordanian club and an Omani club. The DRC furthermore noted that its competence is not
challenged and thus accepted by all parties.
44. 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 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
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).
c. 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
Page 9
REF FPSD-2420
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.
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 the Player filed the claim at hand requesting outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
48. Accordingly, the Chamber deemed that its task was to ascertain if the Contract was
terminated by either party and if that termination was made with or without just cause.
49. The Chamber observed that both parties have diverting views on the issue of termination. At
the same time, the DRC acknowledged that it is undisputed that the Player went to his home
country (Jordan) on 8 April 2021.
50. By examining the evidence submitted by the parties, the Chamber drew the following
conclusions:
a. No notice of termination has been issued by either party.
b. Dhofar’s notices requesting the Player to return back to Oman solely refer to receive part
of his outstanding salaries and sign a “financial clearance”.
c. At the moment of the termination (i.e. 8 April 2021), it is undisputed that Dhofar owed
the Player an amount of approx. USD 30,000, an amount equal to 6 monthly salaries,
corresponding to the salaries of January to March 2021 and a signing on fee.
51. In view of this dissent between the parties, the Chamber firstly wished to recall that only a
breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In
other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit the
expectation that the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties can
continue, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient
measures which can be taken in order to ensure employee party’s fulfilment of its contractual
duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A
premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
52. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC turned its attention again to the documentation on
file and highlighted that it could not be oblivious to the behaviour of the parties, in particular
the Player, who took clearly unwarranted actions without prior communication and, in the
eyes of the Chamber, in a rather erratic way. At the same time, the DRC was comfortable to
determine that that Dhofar had substantially breached its contractual duties, which indicated
to the Player to not reasonably expect the continuation of the employment relationship.
Page 10
REF FPSD-2420
53. Based on the forgoing considerations, the Chamber was comforted to find that the Contract
was de facto terminated by the Player on 8 April 2021 when he left the country. Taking into
consideration the overall developments and circumstances of the case as presented by both
parties, the Chamber was satisfied with the conclusion that the Dhofar’s continuous and
persistent non-compliance of its financial obligations justified the unilateral termination of
the employment contract in the case at stake for outstanding salaries, as well as it can hold
Dhofar liable for the consequences that follow.
54. Based on the above, the Chamber found that the Player had just cause to terminate the
contract on the grounds of art. 14 of the Regulations. Thus, the party in breach, Dhofar, shall
be held responsible and liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
55. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by Dhofar.
56. The Chamber observed that according to Clause 2 of the Contract, the parties agreed that
the total remuneration in favour of the Player for the whole duration of the Contract, was
USD 65,000, distributed as follows:
a. USD 15,000 as signing on fee;
b. USD 15,000 as “participation fee” in the event the player played in 70% of the
matches;
c. USD 5,000 per month from December 2020 to June 2021 (i.e. USD 35,000).
57. Based on the evidence on file, the Chamber noted that it is undisputed by the parties that
Dhofar owes to the Player the salaries corresponding to the months of January, February and
March 2021 in the amount of USD 5,000 each.
58. In addition, the Player requests the amount of USD 12,977 as outstanding signing on fee. In
this regard, the Chamber observed that no evidence has been submitted by Dhofar in order
to support the payment of the said amount. Thus, the Chamber was convinced that this
amount shall be awarded as part of the outstanding remuneration due to the Player.
59. Regarding the “participation fee”, the Chamber found the evidence provided by the parties
to be inconclusive. This remark having been made, the Chamber also noted that the Player
provides evidence of having taken part in 11 games. On the other hand, based on the
evidence submitted by Dhofar, after the suspension of the local league, said club took part in
10 league games and 6 Sultan Cup games, making a total of 16 games.
60. Moreover, the Chamber found that the argument presented by the Respondent in relation to
the absence of a signature of the match observer has to be disregarded insofar as it did not
disprove the Player’s appearance in such matches.
Page 11
REF FPSD-2420
61. Thus, the Chamber confirmed that the Claimant, as the Claimant had participated in 11 out
of 16 games and based on the principle of pacta sunt servanda, he shall be entitled to the
amount of USD 15,000 agreed as “participation fee”.
62. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber confirmed that Dhofar had a debt
towards the Player for outstanding salaries in the total amount of USD 42,977 at the date of
termination, which shall be awarded to the Player.
63. In addition to the above, the Chamber confirmed that the Player had provided evidence of
having paid Omani Rial (OMR) 600, for the flight tickets to return to his home country. In this
particular, the Chamber referred itself to Clause 7 of the Contract and confirmed that based
on the said provision, the Player is entitled to be reimbursed the referred amount.
64. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that Dhofar is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination and the expenses validly
incurred in the amount of USD 42,977 and OMR 600, respectively.
65. Having stated the above, the Chamber 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 Chamber
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.
66. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it 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 Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
67. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Dhofar to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said
provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
68. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded with
the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the Contract from the
Page 12
REF FPSD-2420
date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of USD 15,000 (i.e. the residual value of the Contract) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
69. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
70. Indeed, the Chamber noted that the Player had found employment with Sahab on 23 April
2021. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled for the
overlapping period of the Contract to the salary of JOD 1,330, amount which approximately
equals to USD 1,597. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player had successfully
mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 1,597.
71. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination took
place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that the
player shall receive additional compensation.
72. Notwithstanding the above, if the Player were to be awarded the said three monthly salaries,
his entitlement would exceed the residual value of the Contract. Hence, the Chamber decided
to limit the additional compensation to the amount the Player had successfully mitigated as
per the clear wording of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations.
73. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
USD 1,597.
74. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that Dhofar must pay the amount of USD 15,000
to the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
75. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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
Page 13
REF FPSD-2420
party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due
time.
76. 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.
77. 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
78. 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.
79. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-2420
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, Oudi Khader Salem Al Qara, is partially
accepted.
2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Dhofar, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
1, the following amount:
- USD 42,977 as outstanding remuneration.
- USD 15,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
- Omani Rial (“OMR”) 600 as outstanding expenses.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 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. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), 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/Counter-Claimant 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/CounterRespondent 1 in accordance with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
7. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15
REF FPSD-2420
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