Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12506
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 December 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Ismail Sassi
BY:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil/Switzerland), Deputy Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), member
CLAIMANT:
Ismail Sassi, France
Represented by Çağlar Akoğlu
RESPONDENT:
P. O. Achironas Onisilos, Cyprus
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12506
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 September 2022, the French player Ismail Sassi (hereinafter the Claimant or the
Player) and the Cypriot club P. O. Achironas Onisilos (hereinafter the Respondent or the Club)
concluded employment agreement (hereinafter the Employment Agreement), valid as from
15 September 2022 until 31 May 2023.
2.
In accordance with Clause 1.3 of the Employment Agreement, the Claimant and the
Respondent (jointly referred to as the Parties) agreed upon, inter alia, the following benefits:
−
a monthly salary of EUR 300 (EUR 250 net), payable from 1 October 2022 to
31 May 2023.
3.
The Player further argued that the Parties agreed upon conclusion of a supplementary
agreement (hereinafter the Supplementary Agreement) valid as from 15 September 2022
until 31 May 2023.
4.
The said document remained unsigned by the Parties.
5.
Based on a witness statement by the Claimant’s teammate, the players signed two
agreements and were never given the copy of the Supplementary Agreement.
6.
In accordance with Clause 1.3 of the Supplementary Agreement, the Parties allegedly
agreed upon the following financial benefits:
−
−
a monthly salary of EUR 4,300 (EUR 4,000 net), payable from 1 October 2022 to
31 May 2023;
a monthly salary of EUR 4,300 (EUR 4,000 net), payable from 1 June 2023 to
31 July 2023.
7.
Before entering into the employment relationship with the Respondent, the Claimant was
under contract with another Cypriot club, Doxa Katokopias (hereinafter Doxa) as from
19 August 2021 until 31 May 2023.
8.
In accordance with the employment agreement with Doxa, the Player was entitled to the
following remuneration:
−
−
a monthly salary of EUR 1,460 (EUR 1,300 net), payable from 30 September 2021 to
31 May 2022 (9 instalments);
a monthly salary of EUR 1,684 (EUR 1,500 net), payable from 31 August 2023 to
31 May 2023 (10 instalments).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12506
9.
On 20 August 2021, the Player and Doxa amended the employment contract quoted above,
as they agreed on new financial benefits by signing a supplementary agreement:
“The Employment Contract dated 19th August 2021 between the Club and the Player is hereby
amended and superseded as follows:
1. For the term of his employment for the season 2021/2022, salary amounting to
EURO 48,600 (…) net payable in 9 (…) instalments of EUR 5,400 (…) per month with 30 days
grace period, as the first instalment to be paid on the 30th of September, 2021 and the last to
be paid on the 31st of May, 2022.”
10. On 18 August 2023, the Respondent sent the following document to Doxa:
“Our Club F.C. Ahyronas Onisilos, is interested in the loan transfer of the football player Ismail
Sassi for 2022/2023 football season.
Our Club is ready to pay €35,000.00 to the player as salary for the above mentioned period.”
11. On 15 September 2022, the Respondent, Doxa and the Claimant concluded a loan
agreement concerning the transfer of the latter until 31 May 2023. Therein, it was agreed:
12. On 16 January 2023, the Claimant received a check of EUR 2,000.
13. On 7 April 2023, the Claimant received a check of EUR 2,000.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12506
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 3 November 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
15. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
“The Claimant asks FIFA to condemn the Respondent to the payment of €20, 750.00 with its
interest as follows;
−
−
−
−
−
€ 4,250.00 from 31 March 2023 until the effective payment date,
€ 4,250.00 from 30 April 2023 until the effective payment date,
€ 4,250.00 from 31 May 2023 until the effective payment date,
€ 4,000.00 from 30 June 2023 until the effective payment date,
€ 4,000.00 from 31 July 2023 until the effective payment date.”
16. The Claimant argued that “on 15 September 2022, the parties signed the contract and the
supplementary agreements but the supplementary agreements were not given back to him. We
would like to underline that parties signed 2 different supplementary agreements to compensate
the Claimant's loss from Doxa Katokopias.”
17. The Claimant asserted the “Respondent paid some salaries to the Claimant mostly by cash but
unfortunately the Respondent did not pay 5 salaries to the Claimant which is a total of €20,
750.00 (€4,250.00 each for March, April, May and €4,000.00 each for June and July). We would
like to inform you that the Respondent made one salary payment via 2 cheques with an amount
of €2,000.00 each. This also proves that the supplementary agreements were signed and binding
for the parties otherwise the Respondent would never pay more than the amount written in the
contract i.e. €2,000.00.”
18. The Claimant based his claim on the legal principle pacta sunt servanda.
b. Position of the Respondent
19. Despite being duly invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12506
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
20. 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 3 November 2023 and
submitted for decision on 14 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.
21. 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 employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a French player and a Cypriot
club.
22. 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 3 November 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
23. 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
24. 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. 6
REF. FPSD-12506
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
25. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that this is a claim of a Player against a Club concerning
outstanding amounts. The Player argued that he signed two contracts, i.e. the Employment
Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement, and claimed his financial entitlements
from both documents.
26. The Chamber equally noted that the claim remained uncontested by the Respondent and
that, consequently, decision will be made based on the file (see art. 21 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules).
27. First of all, the Chamber pointed out that it should be established if the Supplementary
Agreement was indeed concluded between the Parties.
28. In this respect, the DRC recalled that the relevant agreement does not bear the signature
of any Club’s representative.
29. In this context, after a due analysis of the evidence on file, the Chamber highlighted that,
to support his argument, the Claimant merely provided two untranslated checks based on
which one cannot really conclude to what these payments of EUR 2,000 relate to. What is
more, it is also unknown who issued those checks.
30. Based on the above, the majority of the Chamber deemed that there is lack of evidence on
file to establish – with comfortable satisfaction – that the Supplementary Agreement was
indeed concluded. Consequently, the majority of the Chamber decided that the Claimant
might only claim salaries based on the Employment Agreement.
31. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that the duration of the Employment Agreement is
until 31 May 2023, i.e. no salaries can be granted for the months of June or July 2023.
The DRC also noted that the total value of said Employment Agreement amounts to
EUR 2,000 (8 months times EUR 250), yet the Player acknowledged the payment of
EUR 4,000 by the Club and, consequently, the majority of Chamber decided that all dues
were duly paid and rejected the claim of the Claimant.
d. Costs
32. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12506
33. 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.
34. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12506
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ismail Sassi, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12506
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. 10