Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11080
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 September 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Sackie Teah Doe
BY:
André dos Santos Megale (Brazil), Single Judge
CLAIMANT:
Sackie Teah Doe, Liberia & Indonesia
Represented by Afonso Leon Lleo
RESPONDENT:
Gresik United FC, Indonesia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11080
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to the dispute are the Liberian & Indonesian player, Sackie Teah Doe
(hereinafter: the Claimant or the player), and the Indonesian club, Gresik United FC
(hereinafter: the Respondent or the club).
2.
On 1 June 2022, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the same date until 30 March 2023.
3.
The parties are identified as follows in the contract (quoted verbatim):
“PT GRESIK USAHA SEJAHTERA a Limited Liability Company, located at Jl. Veteran No. 160,
Gending Wetan Village, Kebomas Sub-district, Gresik Regency, East Java Province, in this case
represented by:
[…]
Hereinafter Referred to as the ‘CLUB’
2. Name: Doe Sackie Teah
Address: Yos Sudarso No. 22 Tamanan,
TuIungagung Place/Date of Birth: Monrivia, 12 August 1988
Nomer ID (NIK) 3504011208880003
Citizenship: Indonesia
Hereinafter referred to as ‘PLAYER’”.
4.
Under the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the total
remuneration of IDR 375,000 net.
5.
According to the information provided to FIFA by the Indonesian Football Association (PSSI),
the player was registered with the club as Indonesian.
6.
By correspondence dated 22 June 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of his “financial entitlements since November 2022”, granting the club with 10 days
to cure its breach.
7.
On 26 July 2023, lodged a claim against the club before FIFA.
8.
As to the jurisdiction, the player submitted he is a professional football player of Liberian
nationality, and the Respondent is a professional Indonesian football club affiliated to the
PSSI. Therefore, the dispute is of an international dimension. The player argued that
according to Article 22, par. 1 lit. b) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (RSTP), FIFA is competent to hear employment-related disputes between a club and
a player of an international dimension, and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) is the
competent body to adjudicate on such cases, as per Article 24.1 of the RSTP.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11080
9.
As to the substance, the Claimant requests that the DRC accepts his claim, orders the
Respondent to pay him IDR 120,000,000 net as outstanding remuneration (i.e., salaries
from December 2022 to March 2023) plus interest at a rate of 5% per annum, and grants
any other relief deemed necessary.
10. The Respondent did not file its position in spite of having been invited to do so by the FIFA
general secretariat.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
11. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 26 July 2023
and submitted for decision on 13 September 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.
12. By this token, the Single Judge deemed it appropriate to recall the basic principle of burden
of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party
that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it. Likewise, he stressed the wording of art. 13
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider and rely on any evidence
not presented by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
13. 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 par. 1 lit. b) of
the RSTP (May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
matters concerning an employment-related dispute between a club and a player with an
international dimension. The wording of the article in question clearly implies that the first
condition that needs to be compulsorily fulfilled in order for FIFA to be competent to hear
an employment-related dispute between a club and a player is that said dispute has an
international dimension. This means that FIFA is only competent to hear an employmentrelated dispute of such kind when the parties have different nationalities.
14. The Single Judge however noted that the international dimension of the present dispute,
which would determine the competence to deal with its substance, must be examined
beforehand. In particular, the Single Judge noted that while the Claimant deems that FIFA
is competent to decide on the present matter because he is Liberian, he also bears the
Indonesian nationality.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11080
15. Along these lines, the Single Judge recalled that the jurisprudence of the DRC shows that in
cases where a player has dual citizenship, the registration is a determining factor when
assessing if the international dimension of the dispute is given, considering that clubs may
enjoy benefits in registering a player with a certain nationality, inter alia, due to the specific
limitations in the number of foreign players.
16. Entering the analysis of the present dispute, the Single Judge first noted from the
documentation on file that irrespective of the fact that the player was undisputedly born
in Monrovia (Liberia), the contract textually states that the player is Indonesian, and the
PSSI has confirmed that the player was registered as such.
17. What is more, the Single Judge underlined that the information provided by the PSSI is
furthermore backed up by data inserted in TMS in connection with the registration of the
player by the club. Indeed, the player’s ID card listed in the claim and in the contract is the
same one available in TMS and provided to FIFA by the PSSI.
18. The Single Judge also recalled that despite alleging that FIFA is competent to entertain the
claim on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the RSTP, the Claimant advanced no evidence
other than the contract in support of his argumentation, as well as no explanation as to
why the international dimension would exist if the same contract listed the player as having
Indonesian citizenship.
19. In view of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge concluded that the player
was registered under the same nationality as the club and therefore the present claim lacks
international dimension. As such, the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear
the claim of the Claimant.
b. Costs
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11080
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Sackie
Teah Doe.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11080
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. 7