Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16889
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Muhammad Sulumba
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), Member
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
CLAIMANT:
Muhammad Sulumba, Malawi
Represented by Islam Hisham
RESPONDENT:
Al Malkiya SC, Bahrain
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16889
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 30 July 2024, the representative of the Malawian player Muhammed Sulumba
(hereinafter, the Claimant or the Player) sent an email to the Bahraini club Al Malkiya SC
(hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) informing as follows:
“This is Ebrahim Paravar and the official representative of the player (…) and we would
like you to advise that our player has accepted your official job contract for the season
2024/2025.
I have attached the signed contract by our player (…). Please send us a signed copy by
all parties when completed (…).
Please advise when will the player be travelling to Bahrain to start the training with
your club, we will looking forward to the visa and ticket”.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 4 of the alleged contract, the Player was entitled to receive a monthly
salary of EUR 2,000.
3.
On 2 August 2024, the Player’s representative sent another email to the Club reiterating his
previous request and informing the latter as follows:
“[The Player] is currently evaluating multiple offers. However, due to the existing
signed employment contract with [the Club], he is unable to consider these
alternatives opportunities. Accordingly, I am requesting a response from your club
within three days, by August 5, 2024, at 11:59 PM (GMT+3 – Bahrain Time). Should we
not receive a response within this timeframe, the contract will be deemed binding,
obligating both parties to adhere to its terms”.
4.
On 6 August 2024, the Player’s representative sent another email to the Club stating the
following:
“With reference to our previous correspondence, which remains unanswered, we are
hereby granting an additional 48 hours for you to inform us of your decision regarding
whether you wish to honour your binding employment contract. Failure to respond
within this timeframe will trigger Article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (FIFA-RSTP), resulting in termination from your side without just
cause. This action would hold your club liable for all legal responsibilities and
consequences.
Subsequently, in the event of a lack of response, our client will be released from any
employment relationship with your club. They will then be at liberty to contract with
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16889
any other clubs without incurring any consequences, whether they be sporting
sanctions or financial compensation obligations from your club. The club is obligated
to compensate our client according to Article 17 of FIFA-RSTP”.
5.
On 1 September 2024, the Player’s representative again put the Club in default via email
with reference to his previous default notices and stating, inter alia, the following:
“In view of the above, and given your failure to communicate or fulfil your contractual
obligations, you are deemed to have committed a serios breach by terminating the
signed and binding employment contract before its expiry date without just cause
according to the article 14 of the FIFA-RSTP (…).
Furthermore, pursuant to Article 17 FIFA-RSTP, the club is obligated to pay our client
fair compensation equivalent to the total value of the contract due to the early
termination without just cause.
Therefore, acting in good faith and with due respect for the club, and in our effort to
avoid causing any damage to it, we are granting you a final deadline of 10 days to
settle this matter amicably. Should you fail to resolve this issue within the specific
timeframe, we will have no choice but to resort to the FIFA Football Tribunal (“DRC”).
In this case, we will report all breaches committed against our client and seek
compensation for the total contract amount, plus 5% interest, six months’ salaries for
the specificity of sports, and 3,000 thousand dollars as legal fees. We will also request
appropriate sporting sanctions”.
6.
On 8 August 2024, the Player signed an employment contract with the Malawian club Creck
Sporting Club, valid for five months as from 8 August 2024.
7.
Pursuant to this new employment contract, the Player was entitled to receive a monthly
salary of MYR 500,000 and a sign-on fee of MYR 1,500,000, payable upon signature of the
contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 4 November 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
9.
According to the Player, on 20 July 2024 the Club contacted the Player’s representative in
order to enter into an employment agreement with the Player, and issued a contract for
the period from 1 August 2024 to 30 May 2025. The Player alleged that he accepted the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16889
proposed terms, signed the contract and returned it to the Club on 30 July 2024, requesting
a signed copy of the contract.
10. According to the Player, the alleged contract included all the essential elements to be
considered as a valid and binding employment contract.
11. In addition, the Player argued that, despite his several requests, to date he has not received
any response from the Club. In this regard, the Player claimed that “the Respondent’s failure
to respond to the Claimant notices is considered a tacit acknowledgment of all Claimant’s
emails, it is clearly demonstrated that the Respondent explicitly terminated the contract in an
attempts to evade its contractual obligations. This behaviour reflects bad faith from the
Respondent’s side for ignoring the Claimant’s correspondence without providing any justification
for such action”.
12. According to the Player, the foregoing constitutes a serious breach of the alleged
employment contract concluded between the parties that has resulted in its unilateral
termination by the Club without just cause. Based on the foregoing, the Player claimed to
be entitled to USD 20,000, corresponding to the residual value of the alleged contract, as
well as to an additional compensation of six monthly salaries in the total sum of USD 12,000
per the alleged egregious circumstances after the Club ignored the Player’s default notices
and ultimately terminated the contract during the protected period.
13. The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of all the above, we request the Honorable Chamber:
1)
To accept this claim against the Respondent.
2)
To consider the Respondent liable for the breach without just cause of the Employment
Contract under article 14 of FIFA-RSTP.
3)
To condemn the Respondent to pay an amount of USD 20,000 as compensation of
terminating the contract without just cause prior to its expiry date and during the
protected period for the total value of the Contract as per article 17 of FIFA-RSTP.
4)
To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant an additional amount of USD 12,000
as compensation under the specificity of sport.
5)
To condemn the Respondent to pay interests at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum
over entire amounts requested from the due date of each payment until the date of the
effective payment.
6)
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
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16889
RSTP; and
7)
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.
8)
As a consequence of the above, to condemn the Respondent to pay all expenses and
costs of the present proceedings, if any”.
b. Position of the Respondent
14. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide a reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
15. 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 4 November 2024 and submitted for decision
on 20 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.
16. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Malawian player
and a Bahrani club.
17. 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. 29 of the
Regulations (January 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of said Regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
18. 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
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16889
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
19. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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 DRC emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the
facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for assessing
the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
20. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerned
a claim by a player against a club regarding the validity of an alleged employment contract
concluded between the parties, its purported breach and the consequences thereof.
21. The DRC noted that, according to the Player, he concluded an employment contract with
the Club on 30 July 2024 after accepting its offer and returning a signed copy to the Club.
The Player further submitted that the alleged contract contained all the essentialia negotii
of an employment contract and should therefore be enforced in accordance with the legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda. Furthermore, the Player claimed that the Club terminated
the alleged contract without just cause after failing to comply with its contractual
obligations and despite his repeated requests to do so. Based on the foregoing, the Player
claimed to be entitled to USD 20,000 as compensation for breach of contract, representing
the residual value of the alleged employment contract, as well as to an additional
compensation of USD 12,000.
22. The Chamber also noted that the claim remained unanswered by the Club, and therefore
concluded that the decision will be made based on the arguments and evidence on file (cf.
art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
23. In this context, and considering that the copy of the contract submitted by the Player was
not signed by the Club, the DRC acknowledged that, before addressing any potential breach
of contract and its consequences, it first had to be analysed whether the document
submitted indeed constituted a valid and binding employment contract.
24. In doing so, the Chamber started by recalling the longstanding and well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal that dictates that in order for an employment
contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the consent of both the
employer and the employee (which is usually manifested by the signature to the relevant
agreement), it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16889
parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the
remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
25. With the above in mind, the Chamber referred to 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. Accordingly, the DRC deemed that it was up to the Player to
prove that the employment relationship, on the basis of which he claimed compensation
for breach of contract from the Club, indeed existed.
26. In this context, the DRC turned its attention to the documentation provided by the Player,
and was able to establish that three of the four requisite elements were clearly present,
namely, the duration of the contract, the financial terms thereof, and the Player’s role as a
professional football player.
27. Having established this, the Chamber turned to the fourth requisite element, i.e., the
parties’ intention to be legally bound. In this regard, the DRC recalled that it is also a wellestablished jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal that the actual signature of the contract
is not the sole element to determine whether there was an existing contractual relationship
between the parties. Instead, the validity and the enforcement of the contract should be
established on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of all the facts and actions
taken by the parties within the context of their relationship.
28. Along these lines, the DRC further underscored that, under the well-established
jurisprudence of the Chamber, “the Dispute Resolution Chamber must be very careful with
accepting documents other than the employment contract, as evidence for the conclusion of a
labour relationship” (see, inter alia, DRC Decision of 9 May 2019, ref. 05190776-E, DRC
Decision of 7 December 2023, Binene Sabwa Bwalya or DRC Decision of 12 September
2024, Galain-ES). Accordingly, the Chamber emphasised that decisions determining that a
contractual relationship was formed, without having a copy of a signed contract on file,
must require a high standard of proof.
29. With the above in mind, the Chamber turned its attention to the other evidence submitted
by the Player in support of his allegations in order to analyse whether from it could be
inferred that the Club also consented to entering into an employment relationship with the
Player.
30. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, he received the contract
from the Club through his representative on 20 July 2024. In this regard, however, the DRC
found that this was not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the
Player failed to prove the origin of the alleged contract and/or how it reached him.
31. Moreover, the DRC underscored that the only evidence submitted by the Player were the
notices of default sent to the Club on 2 and 6 August, and 1 September 2024, which the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16889
Chamber found to be insufficient to establish that a valid and binding employment contract
had been concluded with the Club.
32. Based on the foregoing, and considering that the Player did not submit any other evidence
from which the Club’s consent could be established, the DRC determined that the Player
did not meet his burden of proof as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules in
order to demonstrate that he had entered into a valid and binding employment with the
Club.
33. Consequently, the Chamber decided that no valid and biding employment contract had
been concluded between the Player and the Club. Therefore, and in the absence of a
contractual relationship between the parties, no breach of contract occurred.
34. In conclusion, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim in full.
d. Costs
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16889
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Muhammad Sulumba, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16889
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. 11