Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4544
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 April 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kossi Prince
Segbefia
BY:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairperson
Angela Collins (Australia), member
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi (Qatar), member
CLAIMANT:
Kossi Prince Segbefia, Togo
Represented by Mr Selçuk Demir
RESPONDENT:
Alittihad Tripoli SC, Libya
Page 2
REF FPSD-4544
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player, on 5 October 2021, he and Alittihad Tripoli SC concluded an
employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2022.
2.
The player claims he never received a copy of contract from the club, even though he explicitly
requested it. In support of his allegations, he provided some undated letters from him to the
club.
3.
As per the player, the club undertook to provide him with an annual salary of USD 150,000.
4.
The player provided a copy of the offer made to him by the club, dated 30 September 2021,
with the following content:
“We are pleased to submit an offer for a one year (season) renewable contract for the player:
Kossi Prince Segbefia to join our football team.
The total value of the contract is USD 150,000 (…).
Details to be discussed when you arrive in Tripoli.
Awaiting your confirmation asap”.
5.
The document contains no space for player’s signature.
6.
On 12 October 2021, the club allegedly published in its social media the information that the
player’s contract had been terminated by mutual consent due to an injury. The print of the
alleged publication is not dated.
7.
Also on 12 October 2021, the player allegedly contacted the club in writing, requesting an
explanation about the aforementioned publication. The aforementioned letter is however
undated.
8.
On 13 October 2021, the player wrote to the club once again, pointing out that “the care
offered by your ‘medical team’ is non-existent. Mr Segbefia is therefore obliged to seek
treatment from his usual doctors. Therefore, I inform you that he had to go to Turkey”.
9.
On 25 October 2021, the player once again allegedly contacted the club requesting more
information on his situation as well as a copy of his contract. Also this letter is undated.
10. The player claims to remain unemployed up until today.
Page 3
REF FPSD-4544
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 13 December 2021, Kossi Prince Segbefia lodged a claim before FIFA against the club for
breach of contract, requesting the payment of compensation. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. According to the Claimant, he was never provided a copy of his contract and the club
consistently ignored his attempts of contact in order to find a solution to his situation. The
player denies having reached a consensual termination of his contract. The club never replied
to any of his letters, never provided him any medical assistance and never gave him any
explanation as to the termination. Thus, the player deems that the club breached their
employment contract without just cause.
13. Based on the foregoing, the player requests FIFA to:
a. Accept his claim;
b. Order the club to provide him with a copy of the contract;
c. Condemn the club to pay him compensation in the amount of USD 150,000, as full
contractual value;
d. Condemn the club to pay him damages in the amount of USD 75,000;
e. Condemn the club to pay interest of 5% p.a. as from the 31st day after the decision
on the claimed amounts;
f. Apply sporting sanctions on the club.
b. Position of the Respondent
14. The club entirely rejects the claim of the player, alleging lack of contractual basis. The club
confirms having made the player an offer on 30 September 2021 for 2 seasons (1 seasons +
a possible extension for another season) for a total value of USD 150,000 (for 2 seasons). The
club claims however that the parties did not agree on the terms of the contract, as the player
requested a contract for 2 seasons and the club was willing to offer him 1 season plus the
possibility of extension and a monthly salary of USD 3,600, which the player allegedly refused.
The club adds that the player alleged having sustained an injury, which would take time to
heal, and immediately left Libya. Thus, a contract between the parties was never concluded.
15. Furthermore, the club understands that the essentialia negotii are not present in the
document of 30 September 2021, as:
a. The document contains no signature of the player;
b. No agreement on the financial conditions was reached between the parties, as the
player allegedly refused the conditions offered by the club;
c. The club’s publication is a result of the player having communicated an alleged injury
and the need for treatment; the club accepted the player’s decision to leave and was
surprised to receive the present claim.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4544
16. The club states that it only received one email from the player, namely that of 13 October
2021, and tried to contact him by phone without success. As the parties had no contractual
relationship, the club deemed it was not necessary to reply to his email.
17. Based on the foregoing, the club deems that the player’s claim should be entirely rejected
due to its lack of contractual basis.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 13 December 2021 and submitted for
decision on 21 April 2022. 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.
19. Subsequently, 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 (March 2022 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 Togolese player and a Libyan club.
20. 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 (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 13 December 2021, the August 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
21. 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).
Page 5
REF FPSD-4544
c. Merits of the dispute
22. 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
23. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether they had or not concluded
a valid and binding employment contract, or in other words, whether the offer of 30
September 2021 can be considered as such, as no other document which could be considered
as a contract was provided.
24. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to analyse the parties’ arguments
and the documentation on file, in particular whether the offer of 30 September 2021 contains
the essentialia negotii.
25. The Chamber started by recalling its 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.
26. After thoroughly analysing the documentation on file, the Chamber understood that the
alleged employment contract concluded between the parties indeed (i) contains the
identification of the parties; (ii) provides for the duration of the employment relationship and
the payable remuneration to the player; and (iii) refers to the player as being employed as a
footballer with the club.
27. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that the alleged employment document (i.e. the offer
of 30 September 2021) was only signed by the club’s representative and did not even include
the designated space for the player to insert his signature. Furthermore, the player was not
able to provide any other written evidence that he had indeed accepted the terms of the offer
in due time. The Chamber also noted that none of the player’s letters are signed, none of
them are accompanied by evidence of dispatch and/or receipt, two of them are not even
dated and the club only acknowledges having received the letter of 13 October 2021, in
which the player informs it that it is leaving to Turkey to seek treatment for his alleged injury.
Also, the player was not able to provide any evidence of the alleged injury.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4544
28. At this point, the Chamber emphasised that the player bore the burden of proving the
existence of a valid employment contract with substantial evidence, but was not able to do
so. Consequently, the Chamber concurred with the club’s argumentation and considered that
the disputed document was not meant to be a bilateral document (i.e. an employment
contract), but solely an unilateral offer to the player in order to start the negotiations about
a proper contract, once he arrived in Tripoli.
29. In light of the abovementioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that the essential
elements required by the jurisprudence were not fully included in the document at the basis
of the dispute and therefore the employment offer was not able to trigger the consequences
of a labour relationship between the parties.
ii. Consequences
30. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the player could not meet his burden
of proof to demonstrate that an employment relationship was ever initiated with the club
and therefore his claim lacked any contractual basis whatsoever and must be entirely rejected.
d. Costs
31. 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.
32. 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.
Page 7
REF FPSD-4544
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Kossi Prince Segbefia, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8
REF FPSD-4544
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 9