Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6290
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 October 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ikouwem Udo Utin
BY:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil), Deputy Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), member
CLAIMANT:
Ikouwem Udo Utin, Nigeria
Represented by Mr Micael Totaro
RESPONDENT:
Maccabi Haifa FC, Israel
Represented by Cavaliero & Associates
Page 2
REF FPSD-6290
I.
Facts of the case
1. On 3 May 2019, the player Ikouwem Udo Utin and Maccabi Haifa FC concluded an employment
contract valid for the season 2019/2020, 2020/2021 and 2021/2022.
2. According to art. 2 of the appendix to the contract, the player was entitled to the following:
- Season 2019/2020: NIS (New Israeli Sheckel) 24,805 gross per month;
- Season 2020/2021: NIS 25,500 gross per month (12 instalments)
- Seasons 2021/2022: NIS 27,640 gross per month (12 instalments)
3. The salaries are to be paid on the 9th day of the following month.
4. On 4 May 2019, the club issued a letter indicating the following:
“on behalf of Maccabi Haifa F.C. and/or Kesher Sport Ltd., I Confirm that the
Amounts specified in the Employment Agreement sent to you, reflect the Net amounts
(in USD) as Follows:
1. Salary and benefits:
A. 2019/20 playing seasons: 100,000$ net total budget. 70% fix-30% points
B. 2020/21 playing seasons: 105,000 $ net total budget. 70% fix-30% points
C. 2021 /22 playing seasons: 110,000 $ net total budget. 70% fix-30% points”
5. Art. 7 of the contract stipulated the following:
“a. The parties hereby agree that differences of opinion between the Club and player or between the
Player and the Club, in everything relating to the provisions of this Agreement, shall be decided by an
arbitrator, who will be appointed by virtue of the power of the Association’s Arbitration Institute Codex.
b. The arbitration will be held in accordance with the directives of the Association’s Arbitration Institute
Codex.”
6. Art. 9.6 of the appendix to the contract stipulated the following:
“9.6. Any dispute, any controversy or claim arising under, out of or relating to this contract and any
subsequent amendments of or in relation to this contract, including, but not limited to, its formation,
validity, binding effect, interpretation, performance, breach or termination, as well as non-contractual
claims, shall be submitted to arbitration with the Israeli football association.”
7. The player transferred on loan during the season 2020/2021 to the Israeli club, Bnei Sakhnin FC.
8. According to the player, after the end of the loan, the club adopted dismissive behavior against
him and he was not allowed to train anymore.
9. In this respect, the player explained that the negotiations with the club were performed via the
following persons:
- Players’ Agent: Mr Ojore Oka
- Intermediary (employed by the club): Mr Emmanuel Wonder
- CFO of the Club: Ms Dalit Zimerman
- Administrative Manager: Mr Roi Shani.
Page 3
REF FPSD-6290
10. On 31 August 2021, the player signed a waiver indicating the following:
“subject to receiving the amount of 25,000 USD net not later than 09/09/2021, I approve to resolve and
early terminate the employment agreement signed on 28/08/2019 and I received from Kesher Sport
and/or Maccabi Haifa F.C.
(…)
I further confirm that I don't have and I will not have any law suits and/or complains and/or demands
from Maccabi Haifa and/or Kesher Sport and/or whom on behalf of them concerning the period I was
employed by Maccabi Haifa or the period I was on loan to other clubs in Israel.”
11. According to the club, on 9 September 2021, it paid the amount of NIS 59,000 (USD 18,371.8) and
provided the following evidence:
12. However, the Claimant argues that he was paid on 21 October 2021 and provided the following
evidence:
(note: GBP 13,120 = USD 18,107 according to the Claimant)
13. On 12 November 2021 the player, via his legal representative, sent a letter indicating that he
signed the waiver only subject to receiving the amount of USD 25,000 by no later than 9
September 2021, whereas the club only paid USD 18,400. Hence, the player indicated that USD
6,600 remains due. The player granted 10 days to remedy the default.
14. On 22 November 2021, the player sent a new letter, indicating that the waiver does not foresee
any reduction. The player insisted to be paid USD 6,600 within 5 days.
On 6 December 2021, the player sent a new letter insisting that the acceptance was conditional
to the payment of USD 25,000.
15. As a result, the player considered that it “has no other choice but to declare the Waiver dated
31.08.2021 as ineffective” and, as a consequence, “in the absence of a valid and effective mutual
agreement regarding the premature termination”, he is entitled to USD 105,474 as compensation
(USD 77,974 as “mitigated compensation” and USD 27,500 as “additional compensation”).
16. According to the club, on 20 December 2021, it paid the amount of NIS 20,691 (USD 6,609.08) (see
page 122 of the Claimant’s reply).
17. On 31 August 2021 , the player concluded a contract with the Slovenian club, NK Slaven
Koprivnica, valid as from until 15 June 2023.
18. Accordingly, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of HRK 12,700.
Page 4
REF FPSD-6290
19. The player explained that said contract was terminated on 15 June 2022 and stated that,
afterwards, he remained unemployed (accordingly, from September 2021 until 15 June 2022, the
player would have earned HRK 12,700*9.5= HNK 120,650, equivalent to approx. USD 15,400).
20. Within this context, the parties and the player’s new club concluded a transfer agreement.
21. The transfer agreement included the following signatures:
22. The Respondent provided a copy of the Regulations of the Arbitration Institute of the Israeli
Football Associations. A selection of relevant articles is provided below.
“1 (b) Members of the Arbitration and Mediation Institute
The arbitrators and the mediators will be appointed by the Appointment Committee composed of the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Tribunal, a member of the Supreme Tribunal chairmanship, a
representative of the Players’ Organization, the Director General of the Association, a representative of
the League Administration and the Chairman of the Arbitration and Mediation Institute.
(…)
(c) Chairman of the Arbitration and Mediation Institute
1. Will serve as a full-time arbitrator and will be appointed to adjudicate cases as part of the Arbitration
and Mediation Institute.
(…)
(h) Exclusive Authority
The arbitrators who are members of the Arbitration and Mediation Institute will have the exclusive
authority to adjudicate
(…)
(b) any dispute relating to the contractual relations between a club and a player and between a player
and a club..
5.
(a) Any dispute brought before the Arbitration and Mediation Institute for a decision will be heard
before a single arbitrator. The identity of the arbitrator will be determined by consensus by all parties
to the arbitration from a list of arbitrators, within 7 days from the date on which notice is delivered by
the Secretariat to all parties in the Arbitration File regarding the filing of the action.
If not all parties to the Arbitration File have submitted notice to the Secretariat regarding their consent
as to the identity of the arbitrator, as stated above, then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Tribunal will
appoint, from among the list of arbitrators, the arbitrator who will adjudicate the Arbitration File. In
the event that all parties to the arbitration consent to the identity of the arbitrator who will adjudicate
the Arbitration File, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Tribunal will appoint that same arbitrator to serve
as the arbitrator in the said file.
6. (…)
(b) At the time of filing the action, a fee will be paid and kept in a monetary deposit, as specified in
these Regulations.”
Page 5
REF FPSD-6290
II.
Proceedings before FIFA
1. On 8 June 2022, the player Ikouwem Udo Utin lodged a claim before FIFA for breach of contract
without just cause and requested the payment of USD 91,892 as compensation, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 31 August 2021.
2. In particular, the player detailed his request as follows:
Residual value of the Employment Agreement: USD 110,000
Minus the amount already paid by the Club: USD 18,108
TOTAL NET RESIDUAL VALUE OF THE CONTRACT: USD 91,892
3. According to the player, he did not receive his salaries for the months of June, July and August
2021 and thus argued that he could have terminated the contract with just cause in accordance
with art. 14 and 14 bis of the RSTP.
4. However, the player explained that he tried to resolve the situation “peacefully” and therefore
accepted to sign the waiver of 31 August 2021.
5. The player specified that, In the present case, however, the Club failed:
i. to comply with the payment of the waiver amount on time, i.e. by not later than 9 September
2021;
ii. to pay the total agreed Waiver, i.e. USD 25'000 net, by deducting several "private expenses
without justification.
6. For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimant argued that the Club only paid an amount equivalent
to around USD 18,108 on 21 October 2021 and no further amount was ever transferred to the
Player's designated bank account.
7. In its reply, the club contested the competence of FIFA and referred to clause 7 of the contract.
8. Furthermore, the club considered that the IFA Arbitration Tribunal meets all the requirements of
the RSTP.
9. According to the club, “since the Player has not raised any arguments against any of these
requirements (instead he just complained about an alleged lack of clarity of the arbitration clause), it
must therefore be understood that he accepts that they are complied with.”
10. The club considered that the principle of equal representation is met in this case, as players’ and
clubs’ representatives have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators.
11. In the opinion of the Respondent, the IFA Arbitration Regulations foresees that the Appointments
Committee is composed of one player representative and one club representative, i.e. “a
representative of the League Administration” (art. 1 b of the IFA Arbitrations Regulations).
Page 6
REF FPSD-6290
12. The Respondent argued that “It is obvious that the principle of equal representation is met in this
case, as players’ and clubs’ representatives have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators.
Whether the Appointments Committee is composed of four other neutral members does not change
this conclusion.”
13. As to the substance, the club acknowledged that it paid USD 18,371.8 only on 9 September 2022,
but argued that the player incurred in the following expenses:
14. The club was of the opinion that the waiver is still valid since it does not have a condition
precedent.
15. The club considered that the waiver stipulated a maturity date, not a condition precedent. In
particular, the Respondent argued that since the alleged condition precedent is about a payment
date of a defined financial obligation, there is also no difficulty to estimate the monetary value of
the obligation.
16. The club further considered that, even if the waiver would have become invalid, this would not
alter the fact that the Employment Contract had already been mutually terminated via the
tripartite transfer agreement signed on 31 August 2021 between Maccabi, the Player and NK
Slaven and the signature of an employment contract by the Player and NK Slaven.
17. In his replica, the Claimant considered that the position of the Respondent is a “lengthy legal brief
in order to muddy the waters as much as possible with numerous wrong assertions”.
18. The Claimant insisted in the competence of FIFA and considered that applicable relevant clause
is not specific enough.
19. The Claimant pointed out that the FIFA DRC ruled in the matter Ref. FPSD-2366 of 29 July 2021
that the Israeli FA model contract, i.e. the same as the Employment Agreement, could not because of its broad wording - validly exclude the competence of FIFA.
20. As to the substance, in the opinion of the Claimant, from a legal perspective, the only relevant
question is thus whether the Respondent shall be liable, in application of the principle of pacta
Page 7
REF FPSD-6290
sunt servanda, to pay the total amounts as agreed under the Employment Agreement, to which
he did not validly renounce due to the unfulfilled condition precedent included in the waiver.
21. The player considered that the text of the Waiver is explicit and does not call for any further
interpretative method in order to understand its exact meaning.
22. In the opinion of the claimant, the waiver can only be understood as the acceptance to renounce
to his future financial entitlements under the Employment Agreement provided that he received,
as a condition precedent for the validity of such acceptance, the total net amount of USD 25,000
within a set time-limit.
23. The player explained that, in August, her would have been entitled to terminate the Employment
Agreement with just cause (pursuant to Articles 14 or 14bis of the FIFA RSTP) but did not do so
on the sole basis that the parties were negotiating the Waiver.
24. In relation to the paid remainder of the waiver on 21 December 2022, the player argued that even
if the Club ever paid it (quod non), such payment was untimely and only made after the Player
had already declared that the Waiver was invalid.
25. The player explained that “the club perfectly knew [he] had no access to his old bank account in
Israel”. The player argued that the amount was paid to his IBAN account IBAN No IL92 0108 8000
0000 5547 516, whereas his personal account in Israel is IL10 0107 1600 0000 3381 271.
26. In its duplica, the Respondent insisted that the contract provides for the jurisdiction of the IFA
Arbitration Tribunal.
27. In this respect, the Respondent argued that the Player did not address art. 9.6 of the Appendix.
28. The Respondent considered that the contract was terminated by mutual agreement at the
moment of the Player’s request and was granted to be transferred to NK Slaven. Therefore, the
Employment Contract ceased being in force ever since 31 August 2021.
29. The Respondent underlined that the Waiver does not contain any clause authorising the Player
to claim the residual value of the Employment Contract. If at all, the invalidity of the Waiver an
only bear consequence in respect of amounts due up until the termination of the Employment
Contract and the signature of the Waiver but cannot concern any future financial entitlements.
30. As to the remaining payment of NIS 20,691, the club insisted that all were always made to the
Player’s one and only Israeli bank account.
31. The club considered that the change in IBAN number does not mean that the payments were
made to different bank accounts, but simply that the bank account was moved to a different
branch of the bank.
Page 8
REF FPSD-6290
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or 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 8 June 2022 and submitted for decision on
27 October 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 2022 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.
2.
Subsequently, the members of 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2022), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent in principle to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Nigerian player and
an Israeli club.
3.
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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2022), and considering
that the present claim was lodged on 8 June 2022, the June 2022 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Admissibility
4.
The Chamber further noted that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding
bodies in favour of the IFA Arbitration Tribunal, alleging that the latter is competent to deal
with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract, in accordance with its
clause 7.
5.
The Chamber also noted that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to adjudicate
the present claim, sustaining that the contract does not contain a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the IFA Arbitration Tribunal.
6.
Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle,
competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an
international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such
dispute to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at
national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining
agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in
Page 9
REF FPSD-6290
a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national
arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the principles contained
in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came
into force on 1 January 2008.
7.
In this context, Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause
in favour of the IFA Arbitration Tribunal.
8.
Clause 7 stipulates that disputes “shall be decided by an arbitrator, who will be appointed by
virtue of the power of the Association’s Arbitration Institute Codex”, while clause 9.6 of the
appendix that “Any dispute, any controversy or claim arising under, out of or relating to this
contract and any subsequent amendments of or in relation to this contract (…) shall be submitted
to arbitration with the Israeli football association.”
9.
The Chamber considered that said clauses, when read combined, are relatively clear and grant
competence to the IFA Arbitration Tribunal.
10. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the further pre-
requisites for establishing the competence of a NDRC. The Chamber namely referred to
principle of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle is one
of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution
chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of
the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC
shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a
chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…);
b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal
of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of
a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).”
In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal
influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have
the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the
arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every
interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of
the arbitrator list”.
11. With the aforementioned principles in mind, the Chamber went on to examine the
documentation presented by the Respondent and noted that said Regulations stipulated that
“Any dispute brought before the Arbitration and Mediation Institute for a decision will be heard
before a single arbitrator. The identity of the arbitrator will be determined by consensus by all
parties to the arbitration from a list of arbitrators” In addition, following the same regulations,
Page 10
REF FPSD-6290
arbitrators are appointed “by the Appointment Committee composed of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Tribunal, a member of the Supreme Tribunal chairmanship, a representative of the
Players’ Organization, the Director General of the Association, a representative of the League
Administration and the Chairman of the Arbitration and Mediation Institute.”
12. When reading both elements, the Chamber conclude that the player’s organization is only one
out of the six authorities that can participate in establishing the list of arbitrators. Therefore,
the players’ representatives appear as a minority and therefore we cannot conclude that the
principle of equal representation is complied with.
13. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the club failed to prove that the NDRC
of indeed respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
14. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to
consider the present matter as to the substance.
c. Burden of proof
15. 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 evidence not filed
by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer
Matching System (TMS).
d. Merits of the dispute
16. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, 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
Chamber 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
17. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter.
18. First of all, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties concluded an employment contract
valid for the season 2019/2020, 2020/2021 and 2021/2022.
Page 11
REF FPSD-6290
19. Thereafter, the Chamber observed that, on 31 August 2021, the parties concluded a waiver
with the contents quoted in point I. 10 above.
20. Subsequently, the Chamber took note that the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the
club, noting that the latter failed to comply with the payments established in the waiver and
that, as a result, he is entitled to compensation to be calculated on the basis of the residual
value of the contract (cf. point II. 1 et seq.). According to the player, the non-fulfilment of the
conditions set in the waiver would entail its nullity.
21. On the other hand, the Chamber considered the position of the Respondent, which essentially
acknowledged that it paid its debt arising from said waiver in a belated manner, but
nevertheless noted that it is still valid since it does not have a condition precedent.
22. In this context, the Chamber therefore understood that it its task at this point was to establish
the legal nature said waiver, as well as the consequences of its partial fulfilment.
23. In particular, the Chamber observed that the parties initially had a contract valid until the
season 2021/2022 (i.e. until 30 June 2022), whereas, in exchange for the early termination of
said contract, the player signed a waiver on 31 August 2021. Said waiver implied the
recognition of all paid amounts and the early termination of the contract in exchange of a
payment of USD 25,000 net by no later than 9 September 2021.
24. On this point, the Chamber realized that the waiver is not signed by the club. Yet, despite this
lack of signature, the Chamber agreed that it can be assumed that the club consented to its
terms as it (partially) fulfilled it obligations arising thereof. The Chamber verified that this
aspect is not challenged by either party.
25. Subsequently, and as to the fulfilment of the waiver, the Chamber observed that it is
undisputed that the club initially only paid USD 18,371.80, i.e. less than the required amount
of USD 25,000.
26. In this respect, the Chamber also observed that the parties dispute the date of payment of
said partial amount, and noted that both parties provided evidence in this respect. Yet, after
duly examining said evidence, the Chamber concluded that it cannot establish the exact date
of payment of said amount but, under any circumstance, it can be assumed that it was
ultimately paid insofar this is not disputed.
27. Therefore, given that the player was entitled to USD 25,000 as per the waiver, the Chamber
understood that, following this initial partial payment, the amount of USD 6,628.20 remained
due (i.e. USD 25,000-18,371.80).
28. Thus, it appears to be clear that, regardless of any other circumstance, the club did not
completely pay the amount of USD 25,000 within the deadline established in the waiver.
Page 12
REF FPSD-6290
29. Hence, the Chamber understood that the legal issue to be determined concerns to the
consequences for the club of not paying the full amount within the established deadline of 9
September 2021.
30. In this regard, the Chamber verified that the player indeed unilaterally declared in the waiver
that he would terminate the agreement, “subject to receiving the amount of 25,000 USD net not
later than 09/09/2021”.
31. Therefore, following this logical argument, the Chamber understood that the player would
have not agreed to terminate the contract if he would have not received USD 25,000 net until
9 September 2021.
32. In sum, the Chamber understood that that the payment of USD 25,000 net is the price set by
the player for the early termination of the contract.
33. Given the above, the Chamber recalled the stance of each party as to this issue:
-
-
According to the player, the non-payment is a condition precedent that renders the
waiver null and void, and therefore he requested the payment of the residual value of
the contract,
According to the club, the date of 9 September 2021 is only a date of maturity and
therefore any delay is to be treated as an outstanding payment.
34. In the opinion of the Chamber, the argument of the club seems to be consistent with the
general approach that is taken for settlement agreements and for outstanding payments.
35. Indeed, as a general rule and unless otherwise agreed, the consequence of a belated
payment, in addition to any procedural measure to ensure its execution, is the payment of
default interest on the outstanding amount, but the existence of outstanding payments do
not per se mean that an agreement becomes null and void. The principle of pacta sunt servanda
implies that contracts must be respected, but it cannot mean that they become null and void
solely because one party is not fully complying with its contractual terms.
36. The Chamber remarked that, if the consequence of the non-payment would have been the
nullity of the agreement, this should have been clearly stipulated between the parties. In the
absence of such clause, the Chamber could only treat the failure to pay as per the settlement
agreement as an outstanding payment.
37. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber additionally observed that, on 31 August 2021,
the parties and the player’s new club (cf. point I. 18 above) signed a tripartite agreement
confirming the termination of the contract between the Claimant and the Respondent. In the
opinion of the Chamber, this also further confirms that the contract was mutually terminated,
Page 13
REF FPSD-6290
and therefore the player is not in a position to argue that this termination became null and
void.
38. Therefore, the Chamber confirmed that waiver is fully binding and valid, and the club shall
comply with its terms, including the payment of any potential outstanding remuneration.
39. Given the above, the Chamber went on to determine the amounts due by the club to the
player arising from the waiver.
40. The Chamber first underlined that waiver established an obligation of payment from the club
to the player in the amount of USD 25,000 net, which is equivalent to approx. NIS 80,000 as
of 9 September 2021 (i.e. the date of maturity).
41. On this note, the Chamber observed that the parties first disputed the payment of NIS 59,000.
In particular, it noted that, according to the club, it paid the amount of NIS 59,000 (equivalent
to approx.. USD 18,371.8) on 9 September, whereas, according to the player, it received USD
18,107 (in GBP) on 21 October 2021 .
42. Concerning said payment, as already explained in paragraph III 14 to III 16), it can be
established that this amount was settled under any circumstance, since the parties
acknowledge its payment. Hence, as already mentioned, only the amount of USD 6,628.20
remains, in principle, due (i.e. USD 25,000-18,371.80).
43. In relation to the remaining amount of USD 6,628.20, the club argued that the player incurred
in several expenses, and discounted them from the amount arising from the waiver.
44. As to said argument, the Chamber established that it cannot be followed since the nature of
the waiver is that all previous liabilities are settled, while at the same time the parties agreed
upon compensation in exchange of the waiver. Thus, the Chamber decided that the amount
of USD 25,000 net is due without any right to perform any deduction.
45. Ultimately, the Chamber observed that the club argued that this amount was paid on 20
December 2021 (NIS 20,691, equivalent to USD 6,609.08). On the other hand, the player
explained that he did not receive it and that it was paid to a different IBAN number.
46. From the information on file, the Chamber carefully analysed the documentation on file, and
referred to art. 13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which evidence should be
considered with free discretion.
47. After duly examining the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation, the
Chamber finally considered that the club sufficiently supported its burden of proof, and the
player implicitly acknowledged that the account belonged to him (“the club perfectly knew [he]
had no access to his old bank account in Israel”).
Page 14
REF FPSD-6290
48. Therefore, the Chamber unanimously assumed that the club paid all the amounts arising from
the waiver, although in a belated manner.
49. However, given that the amount of USD 6,609.08 was only paid on 20 December 2021, while
it should have been paid on 9 September, the Chamber decided to award 5% interest p.a. over
said amount as from 10 September 2021 until 20 December 2021.
50. The Chamber further established that said payment is to be made to the bank account
indicated in the Bank Account Registration Form.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
51. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
52. In this regard, the DRC 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.
53. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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..
54. 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.
55. The DRC 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.
e. Costs
56. 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
Page 15
REF FPSD-6290
agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the
parties.
57. 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.
58. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 16
REF FPSD-6290
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ikouwem Udo Utin, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Maccabi Haifa FC, has to pay to the Claimant, 5% interest p.a. over the
amount of USD 6,609.08 p.a. as from 10 September 2021 until 20 December 2021
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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.
2.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration the ban shall
be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with
article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17
REF FPSD-6290
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).
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
Page 18