Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-10670
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Single Judge
passed on 13 December 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Michael Sarpong
BY:
Angela Collins (Australia)
CLAIMANT:
Michael Sarpong, Ghana
Represented by Islam Hisham
RESPONDENT:
Shabab Al Sahel, Lebanon
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-10670
I. Facts of the case
1. The player from Ghana, Michael Sarpong (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the Lebanese
club, Shabab Al Sahel (hereinafter: Respondent or club) concluded an employment contract,
dated 9 April 2023, stipulating the following conditions:
“The two parties agreed to the following:
The first party agreed that the football player Mr. Michael Sarpong shall play for his
football team from 01/07/2023 until 31/05/2024. The second party agreed to play for the
first party as a football player for the mentioned period with his full capacity and abide
by the regulations of the team without any excuses.
Terms: the first party may cancel this contract at anytime or punish the player in case the
club discovers that the player is not abiding by the regulations of the team.
Fees and allowances:
The total amount to be paid by the first party throughout the contract is 30,000 USD in
total, divided into a payment of amount 5000 USD to be paid upon arrival/signing
officially and 10 monthly payments each of 2500 USD to be paid at the end of every month
starting the end of August 2023.”
2. On 14 April 2023, the Claimant returned via WhatsApp the signed version of the contract to
the Respondent, which receipt was acknowledged by the latter.
3. According to the Claimant, following the finalisation of the contract, he “attempted to contact
the Respondent multiple times to request implementation of the employment contract, however,
the Respondent was actively trying to find ways to avoid fulfilling their contractual obligations.”
4. On 26 May 2023, the Claimant sent a notice to the Respondent requesting it to comply with
its contractual obligations, to send the Claimant his entry visa, work permit and flight ticket,
granting it a deadline of 5 days.
5. On 29 May 2023, the Respondent replied to the aforesaid notice and inter alia, mentioned
the following:
“I would like to emphasize that the contract your client has received was not issued by Shabab
Sahel Club or any representative of our organization. The alleged copy of the Contract, that you
have received, was never been signed by any authorized entity at our Club. The copy of the
contract that you are claiming that you did receive via WhatsApp was sent to your side by an
individual who does not hold any authority to act on behalf of our Club. It appears to be a case
of misrepresentation, and we are deeply concerned about such deceptive practices.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-10670
6. On 7 June 2023, the Claimant sent a second notice to the Respondent, denying its allegations
as per its last correspondence and requesting it to amicably settle the matter, granting it a
deadline of 5 days.
7. On 15 June 2023, the Claimant sent a third notice to the Respondent, giving them a final
opportunity to settle the matter amicably within 72 hours, however to no avail.
8. On 22 August 2023, the Claimant concluded a contract with the South African club,
Sekhukhune United Football club, for the period 21 August 2023 until 30 June 2024 for a
monthly salary of ZAR 68,520.15, monthly accommodation fee of ZAR 8,000 and a sign-on
fee of ZAR 300,000 payable in two instalments on 30 September 2023 and 31 March 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9. On 23 June 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
10. According to the Claimant, that he had entered into a binding employment contract by
means of which “the Respondent obliged itself to respect its contractual obligations and FIFA
regulations, however, the Respondent terminated the employment contract unilaterally without
just cause during the protected period after a few days of contracting.”
11. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
-
to condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant a compensation for the residual value of the
Contract in an amount of USD 30,000 plus 5% an interest as from 29 May 2023.
to condemn the Respondent to pay the claimant an additional compensation in the amount of
USD 15,000 plus 5% interest as from 29 May 2023
to ban the Respondent from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for
two registration periods under article 17, paragraph 4 of the FIFA RSTP; and
to impose article 12 bis on the Respondent
to fix a sum of USD 5,000 to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant, to help the payment of
its legal fees and costs.
to condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and costs of the present proceedings, if any.
b. Position of the Respondent
12. In its reply, the Respondent indicated that on April 9, 2023, “our football club based in Beirut,
"Shabab al Sahel," sent an employment contract to the player, Micheal Sarpong. This
communication served to inform Sarpong about a potential deal, with the intention of initiating
further negotiations and reaching an agreement.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-10670
13. In this context, the Claimant indicated that “the player signed the contract in the space
designated for their signature, while our club did not sign it.”
14. The Respondent mentioned that after it received the signed contract from the Claimant, “it
discovered that the player had entered into negotiations with Forest Rangers Football Club, a
well-known Zambian club referred to as "Fole Malembe," where he had signed a one-year deal
with them.”
15. The Respondent indicated that the “player Micheal Sarpong, clearly breaches the rules by
signing two contracts at the same time. This act raises serious concerns about his commitment
and integrity as a professional player and consider that the player in our case acted in bad faith
especially when he expressed in the interview his satisfaction with Forest Rangers Football Club
in Zambia, and he revealed his intention to return to Tanzania to play for any team that would
benefit from his skills. Without mentioning anything about his previous communication with
Shabab al Sahel and his intention that”
16. The Respondent further alleged that the Claimant forged the signature of the contract,
therefore it considers the contract to be invalid, it argued that “the signature on the contract
received from the lawyer on June 15th matched the one on the letter sent by our club to the
lawyer on May 29th.This raises questions about the authenticity and integrity of the signature,
adding further complexity to the situation.”
17. In conclusion, the Respondent requested the following relief:
1) To unequivocally reject the Player's claim in its entirety.
2) To formally request the submission of the original copy of the employment contract for
verification purposes including a comparison of the two signatures.
3) To establish and affirm that the Club is under no obligation to provide any form of
compensation in relation to the Player's claim.
4) Consequently, to fully uphold the Club's response and to require the Player to compensate the
Club for an amount to be decided by the Single Judge.
5) To declare and assert that the Player violated regulations by entering two contracts
concurrently, thereby warranting a four-month prohibition from participating in any
matches, in accordance with Article 17.3 of the FIFA RSTP.
6) To declare the claimant guilty of forging the contract signature, thereby imposing a fine and
issuing a ban of at least six matches as a penalty for the fraudulent act under the article 22
of the FIFA disciplinary code
c. Final Comments of the Respondent
18. The Respondent reiterated its position which is that the player intended to sign two valid
contracts and the alleged forgery of the club president's signature.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-10670
d. Final Comments of the Claimant
19. The Claimant mentioned that as to the of the forgery issues, “the Respondent is well aware
that they themselves sent the signed contract, and the Claimant is innocent of any forgeryrelated accusations.”
20. As to the allegation that the Claimant signed dual contracts, in this context, the Claimant
indicated “that it did not sign any contract covering the same period as the one signed with the
Respondent and all documents provided by the Respondent in this regard, such as media or
others, are deemed to be fraudulent and do not constitute sufficient evidence.”
21. As to his request for relief, the Claimant requested that the Honorable Single Judge to
“consider and grant all the requested to outlined in our Memorandum dated June 22, 2023.
We respectfully ask for a prompt decision in this matter, considering the significant financial
hardships faced by the Claimant and their family. Your timely decision will greatly alleviate
their difficulties.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-10670
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Single Judge
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Single Judge (hereinafter also referred
to as Single Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 23 June 2023
and submitted for decision on 13 December 2023. 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.
23. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute between a player from Ghana and a club from Lebanon.
24. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she 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 23 June 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
25. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she 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
26. Her competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-10670
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
27. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge noted that the parties’ first
fundamental disagreement is to determine as to whether or not a valid and binding
employment contract had been concluded.
28. The Single Judge took into account that the Respondent did not deny that it sent an
employment contract to the Claimant, it argued that (i) it never concluded a final agreement
with the Claimant; (ii) the contract provided by the Claimant was forged; and (iii) that the
Claimant signed a contract with another club for the same period.
29. The Single Judge further noted that Claimant on his account denied the aforesaid
allegations.
30. Firstly, the Single Judge addressed the allegations of forgery made by the Respondent and
in this context, observed that the Respondent failed to provide corroborating evidence
which can proof that the contract provided by the Claimant was forged.
31. As to the allegations that the Claimant simultaneously signed a contract with another club,
the Single Judge took into account that the Respondent provided evidence i.e., media
articles and social media channels of the other club, however, in this regard the Single
Judge remarked that the contract which the Claimant concluded with the Respondent was
to commence on 1 July 2023, which date is after the expiry of the Claimant’s contract with
the other club.
32. On analysis of the employment contract on file, the Single Judge started by recalling her
well-established jurisprudence which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to
be considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the
employee, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the
parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the
remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
33. In casu, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Single Judge concluded
that all such elements were included in the document filed by the player. In other words,
the Single Judge confirmed that the contract created contractual obligations for the parties
and that the Respondent indeed breached its contractual obligations.
ii. Consequences
34. Having stated the above, the Single Judge 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 Single
Judge 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-10670
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.
35. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
36. As a consequence, the members of the Single Judge determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Single Judge recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
37. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the amount of USD 30,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract) serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
38. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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.
39. Indeed, the player found employment with the South African club, Sekhukhune United
Football club, for the period 21 August 2023 until 30 June 2024 for a monthly salary of ZAR
68,520.15, monthly accommodation fee of ZAR 8,000 and a sign-on fee of ZAR 300,000
payable in two instalments on 30 September 2023 and 31 March 2024. Therefore, the Single
Judge concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of ZAR
1,013,365.26 (approximately USD 54,312.8), [August 2023 - ZAR 22,103.27 plus August
accommodation fee ZAR 2,580.64 plus monthly salary of ZAR 68,520.15, monthly
accommodation fee of ZAR 8,000 x 9 months plus sign-on fee of ZAR 300,000].
40. The Single Judge reminded the parties that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii)
of the Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-10670
contract, however as the new contract of the player only came into effect on 21 August
2023, the Single Judge decided to award to the player as compensation for breach of
contract, the amount of USD 5000 to be paid upon arrival/signing of the contract and pro
rata salary for August 2023 (USD 1,693.54).
41. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand and as the new contract of the player only came in effect
on 21 August 2023, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay the amount of USD
6,693.54, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
42. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 June 2023 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
43. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
44. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
45. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
46. 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.
47. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-10670
d. Costs
48. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
49. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
50. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-10670
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Single Judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Michael Sarpong, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Shabab Al Sahel, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 6,693.54 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 23 June 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. 12
REF. FPSD-10670
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. 13