Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13681
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Sekou Traore
BY:
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Sekou Traore, Mali
Represented by Fahed Hijjawi
RESPONDENT:
Al Wahda, Syria
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13681
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 25 September 2023, the player from Mali, Sekou Traore (hereinafter: Claimant or player)
and the Syrian club, Al Wahda (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 25 September 2023 until the “end of the
2025/2026 season”.
2.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
sporting season in Syria ends on 1 June of the respective year.
3.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the total amount
USD 80,000, as follows:
- USD 5,000 as “down payment at the start of each season“ (3x USD 5,000);
- USD 2,000 as monthly salary during the first two seasons (20x 2,000)
- USD 2,5000 as monthly salary for the last season (10x USD 2,500).
4.
On 23 December 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
of USD 4,000 (Salaries of October and November 2023) within 10 days.
5.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player
remained unemployed until today.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 14 February 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
In his claim, the Claimant requested payment of USD 73,000 as compensation for breach
of contract, corresponding to the residual value, plus “legal interest as of the due dates”.
8.
In this framework the player argued that the club failed to pay two consecutive salaries and
that he would have just cause to terminate the contract.
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
The Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13681
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
10. First of all, the Single Judge (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 14 February 2024 and submitted for decision on
12 April 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.
11. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (February 2024
edition), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player and a club.
12. 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 (February 2024 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 February 2024, the February 2024
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
13. 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 it may
consider 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
14. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13681
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
15. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the matter at hand concerns a claim of a player
against a club for breach of contract.
16. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to decide if the player had
just cause to terminate the contract or not, and to decide on the consequences thereof.
17. The Single Judge duly noted that according to the Claimant, he terminated the contract with
just cause due to outstanding remuneration.
18. The Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the player, in
spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the Single Judge considered that the
Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the
Claimant.
19. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge
concurred that in accordance with art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules he shall take a
decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the
statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
20. In this framework, the Single Judge concluded that since there is no termination notice on
file, the player terminated the contract by lodging this claim for breach of contract 14
February 2024.
21. The Claimant claims not having received his remuneration corresponding to two monthly
salaries. Furthermore, the Single Judge pointed out that the Claimant has provided written
evidence of having put the Respondent in default before unilaterally terminating the
contract.
22. It has to be noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving that
it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.
Nonetheless, no evidence was provided.
23. Consequently, on account of the above, considering that the Respondent had thus
repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations
towards the Claimant, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 14 February 2024 and that, as a result,
the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact
with just cause by the Claimant.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13681
ii. Consequences
24. Having stated the above, the members of the Single Judge turned his attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
25. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to four monthly
salaries under the contract, amounting to USD 8,000.
26. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD
8,000 (i.e. 4 times USD 2,000; October 2023 until January 2024).
27. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the
date of effective payment.
28. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single
Judge firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
29. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
30. As a consequence, the members of the Single Judge determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Single Judge recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13681
31. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the amount of USD 65,000 (i.e. 15x USD 2,000, 10x USD 2,500 and 2x USD
5,000) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract.
32. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
33. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
34. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in
case the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous
contract, as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the
contract that was prematurely terminated.
35. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 65,000, as the residual value of the contract.
36. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 February 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13681
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. 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 its 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.
38. 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.
39. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
40. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
41. 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
42. 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
43. 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.
44. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13681
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Sekou Traore, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Wahda, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 2,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2023
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 2,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2023
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 2,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 2,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 65,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 14 February 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13681
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. 10