Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17105
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 December 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Namory
Touramakan Traore
BY:
Tarek BRAUER, Germany
CLAIMANT:
Namory Touramakan Traore, Guinea
Represented by Hugo Paris
RESPONDENT:
Ettihad Alexandria, Egypt
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17105
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
the Guinean player Namory Touramakan Traore (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant); and
•
the Egyptian club Ettihad Alexandria (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent),
affiliated with the Egyptian Football Association (EFA).
2.
The Player and the Club are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Parties.
3.
On 29 January 2024, the Parties entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid from the 2023/2024 season until the end of the 2027/2028 season.
4.
Pursuant to the clause 2 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay a total remuneration
of USD 48,031 to the Player, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
2023/2024 season: USD 4,727 on 15 February 2023;
2024/2025 season: USD 7,874 on 15 August 2024;
2025/2026 season: USD 9,843 on 15 August 2025;
2026/2027 season: USD 11,811 on 15 August 2026; and
2027/2028 season: USD 13,780 on 15 August 2027.
5.
Already on 29 January 2024, the Club initiated a transfer instruction in the FIFA Transfer
Matching System (TMS) in order to engage the Player permanently. In the transfer
instruction, the Club uploaded a copy of the Contract, containing the same information as
the copy provided by the Player.
6.
On 4 February 2024, the EFA received the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC)
and he was registered with the Club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 15 November 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
8.
In his claim, the Player sustained that he had signed the Contract with the Club, which
subsequently withdrew from its commitment. The Player claimed that, in September 2024,
the president of the Club informed him by WhatsApp message that his contract had been
“cancelled”, thereby terminating the employment relationship without just cause.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17105
9.
In light of the above, the Player claimed that he was entitled to the residual value of the
Contract as compensation for the breach.
10. The Player confirmed that he had received USD 9,000 for the duration of the Contract,
which meant that he was still entitled to the balance of USD 39,031 (i.e., USD 48,031 – USD
9,000).
11. The Player also requested an award of USD 5,437 as additional compensation, calculated
as follows: USD 48,031.00 / 53* 6 = USD 5,437.
12. The Player submitted the following relief:
“The Claimant hereby requests the Dispute Resolution of the FIFA Football Tribunal to
accept the present claim and to rule that:
1) The Respondent terminated the Contract without just cause:
2) The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of USD 39,031.00 (thirty-nine thousand and thirty-one US dollars);
Subsidiarily, in case the Player signs a new contract before the end of these proceedings:
The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant compensation for breach in the amount
determines by the FIFA DRC mitigating the residual value with the Player's new contract
value, and adding the additional compensation of USD 5,437.00 (five thousand and
thirty-seven US dollars)
3) The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant interests of 5% p.a calculated on the
amount above, from 21 August 2024 until the date of effective payment;
4) The Respondent shall be imposed sporting sanctions;
5) The Respondent shall bear all the costs of the present proceedings, if any”.
b. Position of the Club
13. The Club failed to provide an answer to the claim, despite having been invited to do so.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17105
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 15 November 2024 and submitted
for decision on 20 December 2024. 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.
15. Furthermore, 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
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2024 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 Guinean player
and a Egyptian club.
16. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2024 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 November 2024, the cited
October 2024 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
18. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17105
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
19. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
20. The Player claimed that the Club “cancelled his contract” in September 2024, without just
cause. In support of his claim, the Player submitted a screenshot of a WhatsApp
conversation with a person identified as “Mr President” and a screenshot of the German
website named TransferMarkt, which displayed that the Player had been unemployed since
August 2024.
21. On the other hand, the Single Judge noted that the Club, for its part, did not submit any
response to the Player’s claim, despite having been invited to do so.
22. The Single Judge therefore recognised that (i) he should decide on the just cause and
consequences of the premature termination by the Player; and that (ii) such a decision
should be taken solely on the basis of the evidence and arguments submitted by the Player
(cf., art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
23. In light of the above, the Single Judge first emphasized that it was for the Player, as the
party claiming outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, to
prove that there was an employment relationship between the Parties; and that such
employment relationship was terminated – by one of the Parties – through the fault of the
Club.
24. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Single Judge found almost no evidence in the case file
supporting the Claimant’s allegations, making it difficult to reconstruct the factual
background of the case.
25. After careful consideration of the documents submitted by the Player, the Single Judge
observed that:
•
In January 2024, the parties concluded an employment contract (i.e., the
Contract), which was also registered in TMS;
•
In September 2024, the Player exchanged messages with a person supposedly
identified as the Club’s president regarding the validity of the Contract; and
•
There have been no further communications since that date.
26. Although the Single Judge was satisfied that the contractual relationship existed, he was
unable to establish the date or circumstances of its termination.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17105
27. The Single Judge found that, notwithstanding the fact that the Player referred to a wrongful
dismissal by the Club, the Player did not provide any convincing evidence of such a breach.
28. First, the Single Judge found it decisive that the Player has never placed the Club in default
and/or issued any type of the written communication (e.g., notice of default or termination
letter) other than the WhatsApp message.
29. Second, the Single Judge also found that the WhatsApp message on file was of limited
probative value, because (i) the messages are undated; (ii) there is no proper identification
of the parties involved; and (iii) the alleged representative of the Club did not explicitly
confirm that the Contract had been actually terminated, but merely referred to an alleged
conversation held between the Parties at an earlier stage.
30. Third, the Single Judge considered that the screenshot of the TransferMarkt was not in itself
sufficient to establish the exact date, initiative, or circumstances of the termination.
31. Four, the Single Judge noted that the Player did not prove that he had ever provided any
services to the Club, let alone that they had ceased after September 2024.
32. Five, although the Player alleged that he had received USD 9,000 from the Club, he failed
to substantiate his allegation and/or to provide a breakdown of this amount.
33. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Player did not provide any documentation
to show what actually happened between the signing of the Contract and the date of the
claim. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that FIFA is not in a position to terminate the
claim on behalf of the Parties.
34. Consequently, the Single Judge ruled that the Player had failed to meet his burden of proof
in relation to the Club’s alleged breach of contract and unlawful termination.
35. The Single Judge therefore decided not to award compensation in this case.
36. Notwithstanding the foregoing and in the absence of a response from the Club, the Single
Judge considered that the Player was in any event be entitled to his outstanding
remuneration from the date of signing until the date of his alleged dismissal, i.e., the
remuneration due until September 2024 minus the USD 9,000 paid by the Club, totalling
USD 3,598.
37. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from 21 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17105
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
38. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with his decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
39. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
40. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
41. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
42. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded rejected any other requests for relief made by any of the
Parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17105
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Namory Touramakan Traore, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Ettihad Alexandria, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 3,598 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 August 2024
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17105
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. 10