Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11383
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 March 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Salli Edgar Nicaise Constant
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Alexandra GOMEZ BRUINEWOUD (Uruguay & The Netherlands), member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), member
CLAIMANT:
Salli Edgar Nicaise Constant, Cameroon
Represented by Loizos Hadjidemetriou
RESPONDENT:
Olympiakos Nicosia, Cyprus
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11383
I. Facts of the case
1. On 26 July 2021, the Cameroonian player Salli Edgar Nicaise Constant (hereinafter: the Claimant
or the player) and the Cypriot club Olympiakos Nicosia (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) and an Image Rights Agreement
(hereinafter: the IRA).
2. Article 1 of the Contract reads inter alia as follows:
“1.3. The Player's gross remuneration shall be as follows:
1.3.1. From 01/08/2022 until 31/08/2022, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
1.3.2. From 01/09/2022 until 30/09/2022, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
1.3.3. From 01/10/2022 until 31/10/2022, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
1.3.4. From 01/11/2022 until 30/11/2022, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
1.3.5. From 01/12/2022 until 31/12/2022, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
1.3.6. From 01/01/2023 until 31/01/2023, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
1.3. 7. From 01/02/2023 until 28/02/2023, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
1.3.8. From 01/03/2023 until 31/03/2023, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
1.3.9. From 01/04/2023 until 30/04/2023, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
1.3.10. From 01/05/2023 until 31/05/2023, a monthly gross salary of €1.684 (€1.500 net).
All taxes payable to the Tax Department, as per the applicable legislation, shall be paid by the
Club”.
3. Article 1 of the IRA reads inter alia as follows:
“1. The player's remuneration shall be as follows:
• With the signing of the present agreement an amount of 10.000 EURO
• From 01/08/2022 until 31/08/2022, a monthly salary 4500 EURO (NET)
• From 01/09/2022 until 30/09/2022, a monthly salary 4500 EURO (NET)
• From 01/10/2022 until 31/10/2022, a monthly salary 4500 EURO (NET)
• From 01/11/2022 until 30/11/2022, a monthly salary 4500 EURO (NET)
• From 01/12/2022 until 31/12/2022, a monthly salary 4500 EURO (NET)
• From 01/01/2023 until 31/01/2023, a monthly salary 4500 EURO (NET)
• From 01/02/2023 until 28/02/2023, a monthly salary 4500 EURO (NET)
• From 01/03/2023 until 31/03/2023, a monthly salary 4500 EURO (NET)
• From 01/04/2023 until 30/04/2023, a monthly salary 4500 EURO (NET)
• From 01/05/2023 until 31/05/2023, a monthly salary 4500 EURO {NET)
2. The employer undertakes to provide the employee with free use of an automatic car. All the
running costs, and any damages occurred by the football player shall be borne by the employee.
3. The Employer undertakes to provide the Employee accommodation near the Team's training
ground during the whole period of employment. The expenses of electricity, water telephone and
any damages will be covered by the player.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11383
4. Article 13 of the Contract reads as follows:
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved according to the
applicable regulations of the CFA.”
5. On 6 June 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for the amount of EUR 19,500.
6. On 23 June 2023, the Respondent replied to the previous correspondence stating that a new
board of directors had been elected, to confirm the amount due and to propose ways of payment.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7. On 17 August 2023, 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
8. The Claimant sustains that based on the two agreements signed, the Claimant’s monthly salary
for the 2022-23 season was agreed to a total of EUR 6,000 net per month from August 2022 to
May 2023.
9. The Claimant sustains that the Respondent has not settled the Claimant’s salaries and allowances
of March, April and May 2023, for a total of EUR 19,500.
10. The Claimant states that FIFA DRC is competent to hear the present dispute because it concerns
one of international dimension. The Claimant refers to DRC jurisprudence and reiterates that “the
CFA NDRC is not independent and impartial as per art. 22(b) of the FIFA RSTP and consequently it cannot
exclude the FIFA DRC’s jurisdiction”.
11. The Claimant argues that “the fact that the CFA NDRC does not respect the principle of equal
representation is confirmed by the Cyprus Footballers’ Union statement dated 10/01/2022, exhibit 9 as
well as its letter to FIFA of 30/06/2023, exhibit 10”.
12. The Claimant filed the following requests for relief:
“The Claimant requests the FIFA DRC to order the Respondent to pay him, in the bank account the
details of which are sent attached as exhibit 2, the following:
i. EUR 6,500 plus legal interest since 01/04/2023, until full payment.
ii. EUR 6,500 plus legal interest since 01/05/203, until full payment.
iii. EUR 6,500 plus legal interest since 01/06/2023, until full payment.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11383
b. Position of the Respondent
13. In its reply, the Respondent challenges the competence of the FIFA DRC. In particular, the
Respondent states that “contrarily to what argued by the Claimant, the Respondent held that the
Cypriot NDRC complies indeed with the criteria set by FIFA for the constitution of a valid and
independent tribunal”.
14. The Respondent explained that the current regulations concerning the composition of the NDRC
are the result of an agreement between the “CFA and the Cyprus Footballers’ Union (PASP), so as to
respect the principle of equal representation (2 members for each side)”.
15. Moreover, the Respondent underlined that “the procedural regulations of the NDRC, art. 22 CFA
RSTP, are almost a word per word translation into Greek of the FIFA DRC procedural regulations”.
16. Furthermore, the Respondent insisted that “the principles of fair and contentious
hearing/proceeding are respected, indicating in particular that the NDRC decisions can be appealed to
CAS and that the parties are equally treated and the costs of proceeding are never unreasonable but
proportionate to the sum in dispute”.
17. As to the merits, the Respondent challenged the amount in dispute. The Respondent states that
based on the two agreements, the Claimant should receive a total of EUR 70,000 for season 2022
– 2023 and as “can be also seen from the receipts which are sent attached, he was paid the total
amount of EUR 69.500”.
c. Replica of the Claimant
18. The Claimant insists on the competence of the DRC and states that “since the summer of 2023 the
CFA NDRC has suspended its operations, even for disputes with national dimension, due to lack of
quorum, after two out its four ordinary members resigned”.
19. As to the proofs of payment provided by the Respondent, the Claimant accepts the payment of
EUR 57,500 only. The payments which the Claimant does not accept are the following:
i. The cheque for EUR 1,000 dated 21/11/2022 in page 7 of annex 6 relates to the same payment
seen in the previous page, page 6, i.e. the receipt for EUR 1,000 also dated 21/11/2022.
ii. The receipt with no. 05006 dated 11/11/2022 for EUR 6,000 in page 8 of annex 6 partly relates
to the payment of the amount of EUR 4,000 via bank transfer seen in page 9 of the pdf. The
remaining EUR 2,000, seen in page 10 of annex 6 has not been paid to the Claimant. As can be seen
from the cheque in page 10 of annex 6, this was not issued in favour of the Claimant. Consequently,
out of pages 8, 9 and 10 of annex 6, the Claimant accepts having been paid only EUR 4,000.
iii. The receipt with no. 04905 for EUR 6,000 seen in page 11 of annex 6, with no date and no
description was related to the Claimant’s remuneration for the season 2021-22.
iv. The cheque date 30/08/2022 for EUR 4,000 in page 13 of annex 6, is not related to the Claimant’s
remuneration. As can be seen, this cheque was not issued in favour of the Claimant.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11383
20. The Claimant concluded that “by the receipts submitted by the Respondent, it is proven that there
exist due payables equal to EUR 12,500”.
21. As to the accommodation, the Claimant states that “the Respondent was to provide accommodation
to the Claimant. Since signing for the Respondent in the summer of 2021, the Claimant also signed a
rental agreement, valid until September 2023, exhibit 1. As can be seen in clause 2.1 the monthly rent
was agreed at EUR 950. As can also be seen in exhibit 2, the rent was being paid by the Claimant himself
and not the Respondent. As a result, the Respondent must be called to pay this amount back to the
Claimant, for a total of EUR 4,750”.
22. As to the car expenses, the Claimant states that “the Respondent was also to provide the Claimant
with a car. What happened in practice was that the Claimant was told to rent a car and the Respondent
would reimburse him with the rental fees. As seen in exhibit 3, a statement issued by the rental
company, the rental fees were EUR 300 per month and it was the Claimant who was paying these fees,
throughout the season. Consequently, the Respondent must be called to reimburse these rental fees
which are a total of EUR 2,778.41”.
23. The Claimant reiterates his previous requests for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
24. The Respondent argues that the reason why the check was paid to another person “was done only
after the player’s instructions. This is proven by page 8 of annex 6 which is a receipt, signed by the
player. As seen in this receipt the player confirmed that he had received two different payments. One
for EUR 2,000 and another one for EUR 4,000”.
25. The Respondent insists that “Next to the payment for EUR 2,000 the number of the cheque, seen in
page 10 of annex 6 is written. Therefore, the player himself confirmed with this receipt that he had
received the cheque seen in page 10 of annex 6. As we have already said, the reason why a different
name was written as beneficiary was because the player him requested this”.
26. The Respondent challenges the Claimant’s argumentation as to accommodation and car as “totally
untrue”. As for the car payments, the Respondent states that “these were made directly to the
company which has a long cooperation with the club. Unfortunately, there are no specific receipts”.
Moreover, it deems that “There is no proof that it was the player who was paying those amounts”.
27. As to the accommodation expenses, the Respondent states that these were also settled by the
club. The Respondent argues that “the club did not agree with the player to cover the full rent of
EUR 950 per month. The club’s police (sic) is to pay to each player the amount of EUR 500 as
accommodation allowance. Each player has the right to find his own accommodation and, if more than
EUR 500, he pays the difference”.
28. The Respondent concluded that “the player did not say anything about these payments before his
response. This proves that these requests were made up after he read our defence which proved that
our club did not miss any payments to him and that the requested amount of EUR 19,500 is not due to
him”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11383
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. 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 17 August 2023 and submitted for decision on
13 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.
30. 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 May 2023 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 Cameroonian player and a Cypriot club.
31. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s objection, according to
which, the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) of the Cypriot Football Association (CFA)
shall be recognized as the competent judicial body as per what stipulated under art. 13 of the
Contract.
32. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant conversely insists on the competence of FIFA to
adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that the NDRC of the CFA is not an independent
arbitration tribunal as it does not guarantee fair proceedings nor respects the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs.
33. In this context, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear an
employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension.
Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided by an
independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework
of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be
included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the
parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and
respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred
to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber Standard
Regulations (hereinafter: the Standard Regulations), which came into force on 1 January 2008.
34. In this respect, and prior to delving into any assessment of the relevant NDRC ‘s compliance with
the principles abovementioned, the Chamber wished to remark that all submissions and evidence
produced before the Football Tribunal must abide by the mandatory formalities established
under the Procedural Rules. In particular, the Chamber wished to refer to art. 13 par. 4 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which all the evidence upon which a party intends to rely must be
filed in the original language and, if applicable, translated into English, Spanish or French. The
members of the DRC also wished to recall the core principle stressed under art. 13 par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11383
35. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to comply with art. 13
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules by not providing copy of the Regulations of the NDRC of the CFA in
their original language as approved by the relevant body of the CFA, submitting instead only a
translation of the said document into English.
36. By doing so, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent has de facto prevented the
members of the DRC from verifying the accuracy of the relevant translation and its congruence
with the original document.
37. In any event, even if the CFA NDRC Regulations as submitted by the Respondent would be the
correct regulations to apply to assess the NDRC’s compliance with the principles as set out above,
the Chamber noted a potential flaw within the structure of the CFA NDRC.
38. Pursuant to art. 22.7(1) of the CFA NDRC Regulations, it would seem that in cases where the NDRC
Chairman or one of its members resigns, passes away or is suspended, it is the Executive
Committee of the CFA, which will “elect a new member or Chairman for the remaining of the term”.
Evidently, this entails that the equal representation principle cannot be guaranteed.
39. In that respect, art. 22.7(2) of the CFA NDRC Regulations seems to be inconsistent with the
mentioned paragraph 1 as it provides that “for an appointment of a new member, the provisions of
the above paragraph 22.3 have to be fulfilled”. However, art. 22.3 of the CFA NDRC Regulation does
not foresee any provisions relating to an appointment; it rather addresses the issue of applicable
law. Whether this is simply a typo and art. 22.7(2) of the CFA NDRC Regulations is actually referring
to art. 22.4 of the CFA NDRC Regulations, it is not possible to establish, again given that the
Respondent failed to provide, despite FIFA General Secretariat’s request, a version of the original
NDRC Regulations as approved and passed by the CFA.
40. The above concern becomes even more tangible if one analyses arts. 22.11 and 22.12 of the CFA
NDRC Regulations, which address conflict of interests. In particular, even if it results from those
articles that it is possible for parties to file a recusal against an NDRC member, which will be
decided by the NDRC in the absence of the conflicted member, it is all but clear the way in which
the recused member will be substituted, should he/she be removed. It may well be that
art. 22.4 of the CFA NDRC Regulations would apply. However, it could also be that such removal
would qualify as a “suspension” in the sense of art. 22.7(1) of the CFA NDRC Regulations, in which
case it would be the Executive Committee of the CFA, the body responsible for “electing” a
substitute. Again, in the latter case, the principle of equal representation would not be met.
41. Lastly, the Chamber referred to the argumentation of the Claimant about non-functioning of the
CFA NDRC due to the resignation of the two player-representatives’ members, corroborated with
supporting evidence, which remained unchallenged by the Respondent. The Chamber found that
this argument was compelling and casted a shadow on the functioning of the CFA NDRC.
42. On account of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection towards the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter must be rejected, and FIFA is competent, on
the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the
substance.
43. Having established the above, the Chamber observed that the present matter involves two
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11383
contractual agreements, the Contract and the IRA.
44. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that, as a general rule, if there are separate agreements, the
DRC tends to consider the agreement on image rights as such and does not have the competence
to deal with it. However, such conclusion might be different if specific elements of the separate
agreements suggest that it was in fact meant to be part of the actual employment relationship. In
the case at hand, such elements appear to exist since the different agreements are intimately
intertwined. Firstly, the contracts have the same duration. Secondly, the IRA provides for much
higher remuneration than the Contract and, furthermore, the IRA includes specific employmentrelated payments/benefits such as the use of a car and accommodation.
45. Based on the above, the Chamber determined that the two agreements between the parties are
to be considered part of the employment relationship, and thus that all documents should be
entertained together.
46. 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 (May 2023 edition) and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 17 August 2023, 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
47. 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
48. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
49. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and
took note of the fact that the parties are in dispute as to the payment of certain financial
obligations by the Respondent as per the Contract and the IRA.
50. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the evidence
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-11383
presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the
Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not having complied with its
financial obligations.
51. The Chamber first noted that in the case at hand the Claimant had an inconsistent line of
argument, as he initially requested three monthly salaries, based on the Contract and the IRA, in
the total amount of EUR 19,500. However, in his replica, he admitted certain payments and
amended his claim, although not his request for relief, stating that the amounts due were USD
12,500 as salaries, EUR 4,750 as accommodation and EUR 2,778.41 as car payments, for a total of
EUR 20,028.41.
52. On its side, the Respondent, which bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the
financial terms of the contracts concluded between the parties, challenged the existence of the
debt and provided several proofs of payments without a clear itemisation.
53. The Chamber proceeded to analyse the different concepts claimed.
Salaries
54. The Chamber first noted that in accordance with the terms of the Contract and the IRA, the
monthly salary of the Claimant was EUR 6,000 net and not EUR 6,500 as claimed by the Claimant
in his requests for relief.
55. On the other hand, the Chamber turned to the several alleged proofs of payment filed by the
Respondent. In particular, the Chamber underscored that the Respondent provided payments to
a third person (i.e. Oratios Hadjigeorgiou) stating that these payments were made under the
specific instruction of the player. However, the DRC was not convinced by this argumentation
since the Respondent had not provided any evidence of this alleged specific instructions.
56. Notwithstanding the above, in his replica the Claimant admitted certain payments and deemed
that the amount of EUR 12,500 remained unpaid as outstanding salaries.
Accommodation
57. The DRC referred to the IRA and noted that “The Employer undertakes to provide the Employee
accommodation near the Team's training ground during the whole period of employment”.
58. In this regard, the Claimant states that the Respondent shall be condemned to pay the whole rent
he paid during the term of the employment, in the amount of EUR 950 per month. Conversely,
the Respondent states that “the club did not agree with the player to cover the full rent of EUR 950
per month. The club’s police (sic) is to pay to each player the amount of EUR 500 as accommodation
allowance”.
59. The Chamber underscored that neither argumentation submitted by the parties reflects the
wording of the IRA. However, the Chamber found by majority to be more plausible that the parties
agreed on the allowance, since the Claimant in his claim deemed that his monthly salary was
EUR 6,500. Moreover, the Claimant in his replica amended his claim to request the rent payments
not originally claimed.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-11383
60. However, the Chamber, by majority, was of the opinion that the Claimant ought to have proved
his entitlement and the payment of the amounts which he claims to be reimbursed. As a
consequence, the Chamber decided by majority to reject this part of the claim.
Car payments
61. In accordance with the IRA, the Chamber observed that “The employer undertakes to provide the
employee with free use of an automatic car. All the running costs, and any damages occurred by the
football player shall be borne by the employee”.
62. The DRC noted that again the argumentation of the parties does not fit the wording of the IRA.
Furthermore, in the view of the Chamber, the Claimant has had an inconsistent argumentation
amending his original claim and the documentation provided by the Claimant does not prove the
payment of the amounts claimed to be reimbursed. As a consequence, the Chamber decided to
reject this part of the claim.
63. In view of the foregoing and bearing in mind the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which
in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the
Respondent is held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding amounts deriving from the contract
concluded between the parties, namely EUR 12,500.
64. 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 17 August 2023 until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-11383
decision.
69. 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.
d. Costs
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-11383
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Salli Edgar Nicaise Constant.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Salli Edgar Nicaise Constant, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Olympiakos Nicosia, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 12,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 August 2023 until the
date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-11383
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. 14