Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13154
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 February 2025
concerning the player Jesse Tamunobaraboye Sekidika
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
André DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
OUD-Heverlee Leuven, Belgium
Represented by Kristof de Saedeleer
RESPONDENT:
Jesse Tamunobaraboye Sekidika, Nigeria
Represented by Nicola Kerremans
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13154
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 25 August 2021, the Turkish club Galatasaray A.Ş., the Belgian club OH Leuven
(hereinafter, the Claimant or the Club) and the Nigerian player Jesse Tamunobaraboye
Sekidika (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Player) concluded a transfer agreement for the
loan of the Player from Galatasaray A.Ş.to the Claimant until 30 June 2022.
2.
On 26 August 2021, the Player and the Club concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 26 August 2021 until 30 June 2022.
3.
Pursuant to Clause 3 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a monthly salary
of EUR 15,000 gross plus bonuses and fringe benefits.
4.
On 21 March 2021, the Belgian Court of Arbitration for Sports (hereinafter, the BAS)
rendered an award in a case initiated by Gran Momento BV (hereinafter, Gran Momento),
the Player’s former agency, against the Player, in which it ordered the Player to pay to Gran
Momento EUR 177,242.50 plus default interest.
5.
On 5 May 2021, and after an annulment petition of the Player against the aforementioned
award, the Court of First Instance of Brussels passed an order declaring the BAS award
enforceable.
6.
On 23 December 2021, a bailiff served an executive garnishee order (hereinafter, the
Executive Garnishment) to the Club in the amount of EUR 198,518.72.
7.
Pursuant to the Executive Garnishment:
“At the request of Gran Memento IC (…).
Pursuant to the issuance, delivered in enforceable from, of the Order granted on unilateral
application by the Dutch-speaking Court of First Instance Brussels on date of 05 May 2021
declaring the arbitral award between the applicant and [the Player], issued by the Belgian
Court of Arbitration for Sport, sitting in Brussels on the date of 01 March 2021, to be
enforceable.
Since a certified copy of the aforementioned order was served by writ dated 17 June 2021
by Didier (…), bailiff in the judicial district of Brussels.
Since, pursuant to the aforementioned enforceable title, an order to pay was served on [the
Player], by writ dated 08 December 2021 by Jeans (….), deputy bailiff in place of Johan (…),
bailiff in the judicial district of Leuven.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13154
Since, to date, the aforementioned order to pay dated 08 December 2021 has not been
complied with.
(…)
I have placed executive garnishment in the hands of: [the Club] on all monies, sums, values,
amounts, objects, things, securities, claims, cash, assets, wages and goods in general, of
whatever nature whatsoever which he/she has or will have in his/her possession, is due or
will be due to, due or will accrue to the debtor, garnishee: [the Player].
I have imposed the notified party prohibition on handing over the sums and/or items
covered by the attachment from the date of receipt of this writ, on pain of being declared
the ordinary debtor of the claims for which the attachment is made, without prejudice to
compensation to the applicant for the damage suffered or to be suffered”.
8.
Furthermore, in accordance with the Executive Garnishment:
“If the garnishee does not make its statement within fifteen days from today or if it has not
made it with accuracy and assaid in the aboveprinted art. 1452 Ger. W., she can be summed
to do so before the judge of attachment and declared debtor for all or part of the causes of
attachment, as well as for the costs thereof, without prejudice to the costs of the legal
proceedings instituted against it, which in such cases shall be at its expenses (art. 1452 Ger.
W.)”.
9.
On 28 December 2021, the Club paid the Player EUR 18,600, corresponding to the
December 2021 salary and three bonuses.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13154
10. On 3 January 2022, the Club put the Player in default, requesting him as follows:
“Unfortunately, the club noticed that you failed to attend the mandatory test session on
Monday 03/01/2022, as well as you missing the flight with the 1st team towards the training
camp in Spain on the same date, despite informing you that your attendance was expected
and required.
The club wants to point out that participating in training sessions and training camps is
mandatory following your contractual obligations. The club expects you to join the training
camp on 4 January 2022 at the latest. In the case where you do not join the training camp,
you leave the club without a choice to, all according to Belgian law, withhold your salary
and any other remunerations following your contract from that day on as you have no legal
cause not to participate in training sessions”.
11. On 20 January 2022, Galatasaray A.Ş., the Claimant and the Respondent concluded the socalled “Protocol”, by means of which they agreed to terminate the Loan Agreement.
12. On 29 January 2022, the Claimant and the Respondent mutually terminated the Contract.
13. On 10 February 2022, Gran Momento put the Club in default, requesting the payment of
EUR 199,703.21 per the Executive Garnishment and informing the Club, inter alia, as
follows:
“This is all the more the case when viewed in the light of the earlier violation by [the Club]
of the wage garnishment imposed at the request of the client on 23 December 2021.
In particular, on 28 December 2021, [the Club] proceeded to improperly pay [the Player]
of his wages.
In this way, [the Club] assisted [the Player] a first time to unlawfully place itself manner to
evade his creditors (in this case, my client.
Article 1540 of the Judicial Code provides that the third-party garnishee who transfers the
sums of money or property that are the object of the attachment is declared debtor of the
causes of attachment (provisionally estimated to date at EUR 199,703.21), without prejudice
to damages.
The discretionary power of the attachment judge in this regard is very limited, in contrast to
protective attachment, where the law provides that the attachment judge can declare the
third-party garnishee a debtor. In executive attachment, the attachment judge has no
choice: the third-party garnishee is declared a debtor”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13154
14. On 8 March 2022, the Club replied to Gran Momento’s letter rejecting the latter’s
entitlement to the amount claimed.
15. On 7 February 2023, the Court of First Instance of Leuven rendered a judgement
condemning the Club to pay Gran Momento EUR 198,516.82.
16. On 12 December 2023, the Brussels Court of Appeal rendered a judgement (hereinafter,
the Judgement) partially upholding the judgement of the Court of First Instance of Leuven
and ordering the Club to pay to Gran Momento EUR 175,000.
17. The Brussels Court of Appeal found that “the statement of the third garnishee made on 4
January 2022 does not meet the legal requirements”.
18. Furthermore, the Brussels Court of Appeal underscored that, pursuant to art. 1540 of the
Judicial Code of Belgium, the third party subject to attachment is prohibited from issuing
the sums or items that are subject of the attachment, under penalty of being declared a
simple debtor for the causes of the attachment. In this respect, the Brussels Court of
Appeal established that:
“(…) it is common ground that, following the seizure of [the Player], [the Club] paid both
the salary for the month of December 2021 and the bonus of 1,800 euros for his
participation in the match against Charleroi and two other bonuses amounting to
(respectively) 600 euros and 1,200 euros. On 28 December 2021, [the Club],
notwithstanding the attachment of third parties placed in her hands against [the Player],
authorised her social secretariat to pay [the Player] his salary and the aforementioned
premiums. There is no evidence that she was unable to stop the payment afterwards. [The
Club] is the debtor. Her social secretariat, Group S, works on her behalf. It can be assumed
that Group S is acting within the limits of its mandate. There is no evidence whatsoever that
Group S was contacted to withhold payment to the debtor, still less that Group S was unable
to comply. [The Club] manifestly breached its duty to issue”.
19. On 21 December 2023, the Club paid Gran Momento EUR 175,000 in accordance with the
Judgement.
20. Also on 21 December 2023, the Club put the Player in default, requesting payment of EUR
192,236.30 informing the latter, inter alia, as follows:
“(…) Prior to the termination of your contract though, on 23 December 2021 in particular, a
bailiff served a garnishee order in hands of the club for the total amount of 198,518.72
euros.
The garnishment targeted to seize your salary the club had to pay.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13154
This on behalf of Gran Momento, your former agent, because you did not spontaneously
proceed to pay Gran Momento” as ordered by the Belgian Arbitration Court for Sports (BAS)
on 1 March 2021.
As a result of this decision, you were condemned to pay Gran Momento the amount of
189,169.13 euros.
As you were still employed by [the Club] in December 2021, Gran Momento wanted to
garnish your salary in the hands of the club.
Given that your employment contract was terminated in January 2022, the club could not
make any payment to the bailiff since the club no longer had any payment obligations
towards you.
Subsequently, Gran Momento sued [the Club] to pay the amount you owe to Gran Momento
as a result of the decision of the BAS.
Very recently, this case between [the Club] and Gran Momento reached its final decision. In
its judgment of 12 December 2023, the Brussels Court of Appeal condemns [the Club] to
pay the ex aequo et bono estimated amount of 175,000 euros to Gran Momento(…).
Given the foregoing, it is clear that you are liable to pay this amount. You are solely
responsible and therefore obliged to repay this amount to [the Club], as [the Club] paid on
your behalf”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
21. On 22 December 2023, the Club filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Club
22. According to the Club, the present claim concerns an employment-related dispute of an
international dimension in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations), as it relates to the employment
relationship between the Club and the Player.
23. The Club argued that the Player ceased to fulfil his contractual obligations in January 2022,
and it was decided to terminate the Contract by mutual agreement on 29 January 2022,
with retroactive effect as from 1 January 2022.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13154
24. The Club sustained that, prior to the termination of the Contract, on 23 December 2021, a
bailiff served a garnishee order in its hands for the amount of EUR 198,518.72 “because [the
Player] was playing at the time at the Club”. According to the Club, this was a consequence
of the Player’s default in paying Gran Momento, his former agency, as decided by the BAS
in its award of 1 March 2021. Furthermore, the Club argued that it had no other option but
to pay EUR 175,000 to Gran Momento.
25. According to the Club, “This garnishment was imposed by Gran Momento to obtain payment,
by means of the Player’s income, of the amounts to which he was condemned by BAS on 1 March
2021, as well as to obtain compensation for bailiff’s fees resulting from this verdict. However,
since [the Player]’s employment agreement had been terminated with effect from 1 January
2022, the Club no longer had any payment obligations towards the Player”.
26. The Club sustained having paid the December 2021 salary before it knew about the seizure
in its hands, and therefore as from January 2022 nothing more was owed to the Player and
neither to the bailiff or Gran Momento.
27. The Club argued that “It cannot be disputed that the Club suffered the damage and had to pay
on behalf of the Player because it employed the Player at the time and because of the
employment agreement between the Club and the Player. Therefore, it is an employment
relationship related matter and without [the Player] playing football for the Club in the season
2021/2022, the Club would never be obliged to pay the outstanding debt on behalf of the Player”.
28. Based on the foregoing, the Club claimed to be entitled to the reimbursement of EUR
175,000 paid to Gran Momento on behalf of the Player.
29. The Club requested the following relief:
“In view of the above, the Club respectfully requests that the Dispute Resolution Chamber or
the competent body of FIFA decides that [the Player] has to pay the total amount of
175,000.00 euros as well as 5% interest from 1 January 2022 on the amount of 175,000.00
euros to the Club.
Finally, [the Club] respectfully requests that the Dispute Resolution Chamber decides that
[the Player] has to pay the entire administration costs and fees of the procedure”.
b. Position of the Player
30. In his reply, the Player argued that FIFA is not competent to hear the present dispute,
alleging that it is not an employment-related dispute in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit b)
of the Regulations. In this regard, the Player sustained that the origin of the dispute is not
the employment relationship between the parties, but rather the negligence and faults
committed by the Club with regard to the Executive Garnishment.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13154
31. The Player sustained that had the Club met its requirements in accordance with Belgian
law, it would not have been ordered to pay any amounts to Gran Momento. In addition,
the Player claimed that the Belgian Court of Appeal ruled that the Club mismanaged the
garnishment, making the Club, not the Player, responsible. The Player argued that the Club
could have avoided being ordered to pay the amounts to Gran Momento if it had complied
with the requirements of Belgian law.
32. Based on the above, the Player denied the Club’s entitlement to the amount sought.
33. The Player requested the following relief:
“[The Player] respectfully and in good faith requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber or the
competent body of FIFA to declare the claim from [the Club] inadmissible.
If the Dispute Resolution Chamber or the competent body of FIFA were to declare the claim
from [the Club] admissible, quad non, [the Player] respectfully and in good faith requests
the Dispute Resolution Chamber or the competent body of FIFA to dismiss the claim from
[the Club] as unfounded.
If the Dispute Resolution Chamber or the competent body of FIFA were to declare the claim
from [the Club] admissible and founded, quad non, [the Player] respectfully and in good
faith requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber or the competent body of FIFA to grant him
an instalment plan at EUR 6,000 per month.
In any case, [the Player] respectfully and in good faith requests the Dispute Resolution
Chamber or the competent body of FIFA to decide that [the Club] should bear the
administration costs and the fees of the procedure”.
c. Replica of the Club
34. In its replica, the Club insisted on the competence of FIFA to hear the present claim, arguing
that it concerns an employment-related dispute of an international dimension in
accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations. In this regard, the Club reiterated
that the dispute at stake arises from the Contract, as “a conflict would simply never have
arisen between Player and Club if the Player had not been employed by the Club and the Club
had not owed the Player any wages as a result of that employment contract”.
35. According to the Club, “the basis of the dispute at hand concerns the payment of the wages of
December 2021 to the Player instead of to the bailiff. The sanction for this “wrong” payment is
that the Club now was condemned to pay what [the Player] owed Gran Momento (or the bailiff)
at that time”.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13154
36. The Club argued that it is not seeking to reform the Judgement, but that this Judgement
does not eliminate the existence of the Player’s culpability.
37. The Club amended its request for relief as follows:
“In view of the foregoing, [the Club] firstly respectfully requests that the Dispute Resolution
Chamber or the competent body of FIFA declares itself competent to determine the dispute.
Subsequently, [the Club] respectfully requests that the Dispute Resolution Chamber or the
competent body of FIFA decides that [the Player] has to pay the total amount of 175,000.00
euros to the Club as well as 5% interest from 1 January 2022 on the amount of 175,000.00
euros.
In principal order, [the Club] requests that the Player be ordered to pay this amount in one
lump sum. In subordinate order, the Club requests that [the Player] be ordered to repay
the aforementioned amount at 15,000.00 per month.
Finally, [the Club] respectfully requests that the Dispute Resolution Chamber or the
competent body of FIFA decides that [the Player] has to pay the entire administration costs
and fees of the procedure”.
d. Duplica of the Player
38. In his duplica, the Player reiterated that FIFA is not competent to hear the present claim as
it does not concern an employment-related dispute.
39. The Player insisted that the Club could have avoided being ordered to pay any amounts to
Gran Momento if it had complied with the Executive Garnishment.
40. The Player argued that in case any amount is to be awarded to the Club, it should be
mitigated to the amount of EUR 18,600, i.e., the amount paid by the Club on 28 December
2021.
41. The Player amended his request for relief as follows:
“[The Player] respectfully and in good faith requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber or any
other body of FIFA to declare itself incompetent to determine the dispute and to declare the
claim from [the Club] inadmissible.
If the Dispute Resolution Chamber or any other body of FIFA were to declare itself competent
and the claim from [the Club] admissible, quod non, [The Player] respectfully and in good
faith requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber or any other body of FIFA to dismiss the claim
from [the Club] as unfounded.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13154
In subordinate order and if the Dispute Resolution Chamber or any other body of FIFA were
to declare itself competent and the claim from [the Club] admissible and founded on the
basis of article 4 of the Employment Agreement, quod non, [The Player] respectfully and in
good faith requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber or any other body of FIFA to mitigate
the amount claimed by [the Club] to the amount of € 18.600,00 (eighteen thousand six
hundred euros).
In most subordinate order and if the Dispute Resolution Chamber or any other body of FIFA
were to declare itself competent and the claim from [the Club] admissible and founded,
quod non, [The Player] respectfully and in good faith requests the Dispute Resolution
Chamber or any other body of FIFA to grant him an instalment plan at € 6.000,00 (six
thousand euros) per month.
In any case, [The Player] respectfully and in good faith requests the Dispute Resolution
Chamber or any other body of FIFA to decide that [the Club] should bear the administration
costs and the fees of the procedure”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
42. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 22 December 2023 and submitted for decision
on 27 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 of the January 2025 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. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the January
2025 edition of the Regulations, the DRC is competent to deal with employment-related
disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension.
44. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the parties strongly disputed whether the present
dispute is “employment-related” and whether it therefore falls within the scope of art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13154
45. On the one hand, the Club contended that the present claim related to the employment
relationship between the Club and the Player, arguing that a conflict between the parties
would never have arisen if the Player had not been employed by the Club.
46. On the other hand, the Player asserted that this claim is not employment-related in the
sense of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, as its origin is not the employment
relationship between the Parties, but rather the Club’s negligence and faults with regard to
the Executive Garnishment.
47. In this context, the DRC acknowledged that its primary task was to analyse, based on the
aforementioned provision, if the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the present
claim.
48. In doing so, the Chamber initially noted that, pursuant to art. 22 par. 1 of the Regulations:
“Without prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association, or club to seek redress
before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear: (…) b)
employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension
(…)”.
49. As a preliminary remark, the Chamber underscored that the aforementioned provision
does not define what should be understood as “employment-related”.
50. Nonetheless, the Chamber referred to the Commentary to art. 22 of the Regulations, which
clarifies that:
“Generally speaking, it can be held that whenever the origin of a dispute lies within the
contractual employment relationship between a player and their club, i.e., whenever the
relevant employment contract serves as the legal basis for the claim between the parties, it
can be assumed that the dispute is “employment-related” within the meaning of article 22
paragraph 1 b) of the Regulations” (cf. p. 460 of the Commentary).
51. In this regard, and by way of example, the DRC and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
have repeatedly confirmed that disputes arising from a settlement agreement concluded
between a player and a club upon the termination of their employment contract are
employment-related, as it still inherently pertains to a dispute concerning an employment
agreement between the parties (in this regard, CAS 2019/A/6312 Ailton José Almeida v. Al
Jazira Football Sports Company & FIFA).
52. Nonetheless, the Chamber underscored that the foregoing does not imply that FIFA is
competent to hear any kind of dispute arising between a player and a club of an
international dimension. As required by art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations itself and the
longstanding jurisprudence of the DRC and CAS, cases must be analysed on an individual
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13154
bases in order to establish that the dispute is indeed related to the employment
relationship at issue.
53. In this regard, the Chamber has repeatedly established that, in principle, the DRC does not
have jurisdiction to hear disputes between players and clubs arising from image rights
agreements. In line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, only if it is
reasonable to assume that the image rights agreement was intended to complement the
player’s terms of employment, rather than being a genuinely separate agreement, the
image rights agreement can be considered as part of an employment dispute (cf. p. 460 of
the Commentary).
54. As stressed in the Decision of the DRC of 15 May 2024, Alves da Silva:
“In principle, FIFA is not competent to decide on agreements concerning the licencing of
image rights, as these are not employment-related agreements. However, in line with the
long-standing jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, such conclusion might be different if
specific elements of the separate agreements suggest that it was in fact intended to be part
of the actual employment relationship”.
55. With the all the above in mind, the Chamber went on to analyse the arguments and
evidence submitted by the parties, and noted that the Club claimed to be entitled to the
reimbursement of the amount paid to Gran Momento –the Player’s former agency–, in
accordance with the Executive Garnishment issued to the Club on 23 December 2021 and,
ultimately, the Judgement rendered by the Brussels Court of Appeal on 12 December 2023,
which found the Club debtor and ordered it to pay EUR 175,000 to Gran Momento.
56. The DRC therefore noted that, as opposed to the Club’s position, the dispute at stake did
not arise from the employment relationship between the Club and the Player, but rather
from the Club’s obligation to pay to the Player’s former agency EUR 175,000 in accordance
with the Judgement of the Brussels Court of Appeal.
57. In other words, the Chamber underscored that the aforementioned payment obligation
did not arise from the parties’ rights and obligations that are inherent to an employment
relationship. Accordingly, the DRC decided that the present dispute cannot be considered
as employment-related within the meaning of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
58. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the
present claim.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13154
b. Costs
59. 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 DRC decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed
on the parties.
60. 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.
61. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13154
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, OUDHeverlee Leuven.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13154
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 16