Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-8339
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 April 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Nour Zamen Zammouri
BY:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
Peter Lukasek (Slovakia), member
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT I:
Nour Zamen Zammouri, Tunisia
Represented by Ali Abbes and Mohamed Rokbani
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Ismaily SC, Egypt
COUNTER-RESPONDENT II:
CS Sfaxien, Tunisia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-8339
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 22 September 2022, the Tunisian player Nour Zeman Zammouri (hereinafter the player)
and the Egyptian club Ismaily SC (hereinafter the club) concluded an employment
agreement (hereinafter the Employment Agreement) valid for three seasons,
i.e. seasons 2022/2023, 2023/2024 and 2024/2025.
2.
In Clause 2 of the Employment Agreement, the player and the club (jointly referred to as
the parties) agreed upon the following financial conditions:
Season 2022/2023: USD 200,000, payable as follows
− USD 100,000, payable on 22 September 2022;
− USD 25,000, payable on 31 January 2023;
− USD 25,000, payable on 31 April 2023;
− USD 50,000, payable on 30 August 2023.
Season 2023/2024: USD 213,300, payable as follows
− USD 53,325, payable on 22 September 2023;
− USD 53,325, payable on 31 January 2024;
− USD 53,325, payable on 31 April 2024;
− USD 53,325, payable on 30 August 2024.
Season 2024/2025: USD 226,600, payable as follows
− USD 56,650, payable on 22 September 2024;
− USD 56,650, payable on 31 January 2025;
− USD 56,650, payable on 31 April 2025;
− USD 56,650, payable on 30 August 2025.
3.
In accordance with Clause 4.6 of the Employment Agreement, “the player shall pay all taxes
owed by him for this contract and any other qualitative rewards according to the law. It shall be
deducted by the club from the player's entitlements and to be given to Tax Authority under his
liability.”
4.
In Clause 6 of the Employment Agreement, the parties agreed upon the following
provisions:
“1. The player is intitled to receive USD 15000 net in case of participating in 2 matches with
the Tunisian national team.
2. The player will receive an accommodation bonus of 700 EGP net per month.
3. The player must receive a net sign-on fee of USD 65000 upon the signature of the contract.
4. The player has two round trip flight tickets per season.
5. The player will receive a participation bonus of USD 10000 if he will participate in
21 matches.
6. The player will receive USD 10000 if he will participate in 8 matches with clean sheet.
7. The player has a sell-on-fee of 10% from his future transfer fee.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-8339
5.
The player asserted that the following provisions of Clause 6 were not mentioned in the
original copy signed by him and that those were added “after the player’s signature and
without his consent” and that, consequently, they should not be taken into account:
“8. The player recognizes that he will respect the internal financial regulation of the club and
recognizes that he has received a copy of it by signing this contract.
9. The player recognizes the right of the club to unilaterally terminate this contract.
10. The player gives the right to the club to terminate the contract unilaterally before any
registration window.
11. The club has the right to terminate the contract after 15 days from the last match of the
season after sending a notice to the player’s email and will only pay the player an agreed
compensation of 10000 USD after 15 days and the player has no right to claim any other
amounts.”
6.
It remained undisputed that the player received an amount of USD 10,000.
7.
The player further received two checks in the total amount of USD 130,000 (two times
USD 65,000), yet those checks were returned by the respective bank on 1 November 2022
due to “insufficient funds, partial payment refused / without any responsibility on
commercial international bank”.
8.
On 2 November 2022, the player sent a default notice to the club, requesting to be paid the
full amount of the first instalment for the season 2022/2023. The player granted the club a
deadline of 15 days to pay the outstanding amounts, however, to no avail.
9.
On 10 November 2022, the club sent a letter to the player, asserting that the latter received
a total amount of USD 75,000 (i.e. USD 10,000 on 12 September 2022 and USD 65,000 on
20 October 2022). The club further pointed to Clause 4 of the Employment Contract that it
is deducting taxes of 25% from the player dues and transfer it to the tax authority.
10. In his reply of 10 November 2022, the player insisted that the amount of USD 90,000
remained outstanding and requested the payment thereof. The player further pointed to
the problem with the checks.
11. On 17 November 2022, the club reiterated that the Employment Agreement is subject to
25% tax, i.e. the player was merely entitled to USD 75,000. The club further explained that
the checks might only be cashed in local currency and suggested to the player the following:
“So if the Player accept to transfer the equivalent amount for his due amount of 65 thousands
in EGP currency to his bank account, he should confirm this in writing and attend to the club
or the president office to meet with us and the club will grant him the confirmation to the
transfer of the amount in EGP.
Consequently, the Player has two choices, and we are entirely ready to proceed with whatever
he chooses:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-8339
1- To attend at the Club on any working day between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM to issue the
request form for exchange his due amount in US Dollars.
2- To receive his due amounts to his bank account by EGP transfer as the amount will be
transferred in Egyptian Pounds, not US Dollars. We cannot do anything in this matter, it is the
official procedures for the banking system.”
12. On 18 November 2022, the player terminated the Employment Agreement with the club
for outstanding payments.
13. On 31 January 2023, the player signed a new employment agreement (hereinafter the New
Employment Agreement) with the Tunisian club CS Sfaxien (hereinafter the new club) valid as
from the date of signing until 30 June 2024.
14. In accordance with Clause 3 of the New Employment Agreement, the player is entitled to
the following payments:
−
−
−
−
Season 2022/2023 (salary of 6 months): TND (Tunisia Dinar) 8,000/month;
Sign-on fee of TND 50,000 for the season 2022/2023;
Season 2023/2024 (salary of 12 months): TND 14,000/month;
Sign-on fee of TND 200,000 for the season 2023/2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 24 November 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. The club filed a
counterclaim. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the player / claim
16. The requests for relief of the player were the following:
“(i) determine that player had just cause to terminate the Employment contract signed on 22
September 2022.
(ii) order Ismaily Sports Club (Egypt) to pay the total amount of twenty-five thousand two
hundred Egyptian pounds (25200 EGP) and five hundred thirty-nine thousand nine hundred
dollars (539900 USD) as compensation for breach of the contract plus 5% p.a. as from the
date of notification of 18 November 2022 until the effective payment;
(iii) order Ismaily Sports Club (Egypt) to pay the following amounts as an overdue payable:
* USD 65000 as a sign-on fee payable on 22/09/2022 plus 5% p.a. as from 23/09/2022 until
the date of effective payment.
* USD 90000 as remaining amount of the first instalment due on 22/09/2022 plus 5% p.a. as
from 23/09/2022 until the date of effective payment.
(v) Impose any sanction to the Club as considered appropriate.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-8339
17. The Claimant argued that the Employment Agreement was terminated with just cause
based on the outstanding salaries, i.e. in line with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
b. Position of the club / counterclaim
18. In its reply, the club submitted a counterclaim against the player with the following request
for relief:
“1) To accept this claim against the Player; and
2) To rule that the Player prematurely terminated the Contract without just cause; and
3) To condemn the Respondent to pay the following compensation (in total: USD 1,204,900 +
5% p.a.):
• Residual value of the Contract: USD 704,900 + 5% p.a. as from 18 November 2022
• Loss of Transfer Fee: EUR 400,000 + 5% p.a. as from 18 November 2022
• Specificity of Sport: USD 100,000 + 5% p.a. as from 18 November 2022
4) To ban the Player for a duration of six month from participating in any football activity
based on Article 17 Para 3 of the FIFA RSTP; and
5) To fix a sum of EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand Euros), to be paid by the Respondents to the
Claimant, to help the payment of its legal fees and costs; and
6) As a consequence of the above, to condemn the Respondents to pay all expenses and costs
of the present proceedings, if any.
7) Alternatively, if the Player’s termination would be deemed to be with just cause, he should
be entitled to ANY compensation.
8) Alternatively, if the Player is deemed to be entitled to any compensation, it shall be limited
to USD 10,000 only.
9) Alternatively, if the Honorable DRC decided not to apply the penalty clause for any reason,
the Player’s compensation shall be significantly mitigated for the following reasons:
• The Player shall not be entitled to any specificity of Sport
• The Player shall not be entitled to the participation rate amounting to 25% of the total
value of the Contract (i.e. USD 120,000 after taxes)
• Based on the Player’s contribution to the termination of contract and his bad faith, any
compensation shall be mitigated with a percentage of 75%
• In all cases, any compensation for the Player, if any, shall be calculated based on the
net amounts rather than the gross amounts stipulated in the Contract.”
19. The club firstly noted that “from day one, the Player started making problems with the Club
and his teammates, he was absent on seven days as explained in (Annex 11 – Player’s
deductions) triggering seven financial sanctions amounting to EGP 50,000 each (Aggregate:
EGP 350,000).”
20. The club was further of the opinion that it was the player who terminated the contract
without just cause since the club itself “repeatedly tried to resolve the matter amicably by reexplaining to Player the official procedures for the taxes system and banking system in Egypt,
and offering the Player two choices,
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-8339
−
−
To attend to the club on any working day to sign the request for bank format for
exchange the amount from Egyptian pound to USD as required by bank system in Egypt.
To receive his due amounts to his bank account by Egyptian pounds.”
21. The club further asserted that the player acted in bad faith concerning the bank checks
(“which he did not timely collect”) as well as not cooperating with the club when the latter
tried to resolve the issue, but rather terminated the contract with immediate effect.
22. What is more, the club noted that the player denied that the tax of 25% is applicable on the
due amounts, which is clearly stipulated in Clause 4.6 of the Employment Agreement.
23. The club further asserted that the player terminated the contract “before the end of the first
two months of the Contract which is a mandatory condition for any termination of any contract
to be with just cause, in addition to the well-known condition of having two monthly salaries
outstanding on a pro-rata basis in a situation like ours where the Player’s due monies are not
put on a regular basis.”
24. In summary, the club argued that the termination was without just cause due to the
following:
“a) The Player did not properly notify the Club with his outstanding salaries when he
intentionally did hide the fact that the Cheques were unpaid because of his own delay;
b) The 15-day notice period did not expire since it shall be deemed to have commenced on
11 November 2022, not 02 November 2022.
c) The Club did not deny the absence of due amounts in favor of the Player and explicitly
stated that it will pay all his due amounts as soon as he decides whether to receive his
amounts in US Dollars in his presence at the bank or in Egyptian Pounds without any need
for his physical attendance at anywhere.
d) The Player’s evident bad faith as stated and evidenced above, taking into consideration all
the surrounding circumstances.”
25. The club argued that, based on the above, the termination by the player was not ultima
ration as “it can never be assumed or envisaged that the Player reasonable lost his hopes on
the Club that the latter will pay him his due amounts.”
26. Consequently, the club requested compensation for the unjustified breach.
c. Position of the player / reply to the counterclaim
27. In its reply to the counterclaim, the player asserted that “the club states that the player hadn’t
just cause to terminate the contract on the basis of article 14 bis RSTP because:
- He has received all his due by check.
- He didn’t submit the checks for payment of the value date i.e. 20 October 2022.
- The amount claimed was gross.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-8339
- The amount subject to the termination was not exact.
- The regulatory deadline of 15 days was not respected by the claimant.”
28. Regarding the bank checks, the player argued that “two bank checks were presented to the
bank and the certificates of non-payment were issued on 1st November 2022”.
29. What is more, the player argued that “the amounts provided by the contract are net of any
kind of tax or charges.”
30. In this respect, the player pointed out to the contract and argued that “the copy signed by
the player doesn’t contain point 11 of article number 6 of the contract as you can verify from
the copy signed and printed by the player which was photographed by the player’s phone so
that the club will not add other provisions after his signature” and that the contract provided
by the club is forged.
31. Regarding the amount subject to the default notice, the player alleged that, at the signing
date of the contract, he was entitled to the amount of USD 165,000 and that by limiting the
default notice sent on 2 November 2022 to USD 100,000 without adding the sign-on fee of
USD 65,000, “the player has showed his good faith and his and his desire to continue playing
with the club.”
32. Based on the above, the player argued that “termination has been made for the non-payment
of the first instalment and we have only reminded the club in our notification of termination
that he owed also the sign-on fee.”
33. Finally, the player added that it, indeed, respected the deadline of 15-days,
i.e. “2 November 2022 represents the starting date of the deadline.”
34. The player then reiterated its request for relief.
d. Position of the new club
35. In its reply to the counterclaim, the New Club asserted that it signed the player as a free
agent on 31 January 2023, long after the player terminated the contract with just cause
for outstanding remuneration.
36. In support of its argumentation, the New Club provided with the default notice for
outstanding amounts sent by the player to the club as well as evidence that the latter did
not raise any objection to the ITC request.
37. In view of the above, the New Club was of the opinion that it shall be released from any
liability in the dispute and requested the following:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-8339
−
−
−
−
“Determine that player had just cause to terminate the Employment contract signed
on 22 September 2022.
Determine that CS Sfaxien has validly signed the player as a free agent, being free
from any other commitment.
Determine that CS Sfaxien acted in good faith and did not intervene in the
inducement of this termination for just cause of the player’s contract.
Consequently determine that CS Sfaxien is not liable for any compensation towards
the Claimant Club.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. 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 24 November 2022 and
submitted for decision on 20 April 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
October 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.
39. 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 (March 2023 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 player from and
a club from .
40. 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 (March 2023 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 November 2022, the October 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
41. 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).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-8339
c. Merits of the dispute
42. 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
43. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early
termination of the contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain
financial obligations by the Respondent as per the contract.
44. At this point, the DRC first recalled that based on Clause 2 of the Employment Agreement,
the player was entitled to USD 100,000 payable on 22 September 2022 and that this
amount was subjected to the applicable tax in line with Clause 4.6 of the Employment
Agreement. However, the Chamber equally noted that the club failed to meet its burden of
proof as to the applicable tax percentage.
45. What is more, the Chamber observed that in Clause 6 of the Employment Agreement, an
additional amount of USD 65,000 net was payable upon signing of the contract.
46. The Chamber then recalled the argumentation of the player that he merely received the
amount of USD 10,000 and that a substantial amount of the contract – in particular
USD 90,000 and USD 65,000 net – remained outstanding at the date of termination on
18 November 2022.
47. The DRC also took note that the player received two checks in the total amount of
USD 130,000 (two times USD 65,000), yet that those checks were returned by the respective
bank on 1 November 2022 due to “insufficient funds, partial payment refused / without any
responsibility on commercial international bank”.
48. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that their task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent.
49. In view of the above, the DRC wished to point out that in the case at hand the club bore the
burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract
concluded between the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-8339
50. In this regard, the Chamber turned their attention to the allegations of the club that it
conducted the proceedings in good faith, in particular pointing to its correspondence of
17 November 2022, by which it informed the player regarding his options to collect the
outstanding amounts.
51. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that it remained undisputed that no payment was
executed by the club and that the total payment of USD 155,000 was outstanding since
22 September 2022, i.e. the club did not prove beyond doubt the payment of the amounts
claimed as outstanding by the player.
52. To summarize, the Chamber considered that (i) the player provided sufficient evidence that
he was not able to check out his checks and that (ii) the club failed to prove that it complied
with the financial terms of the contract and concluded that the player terminated the
Employment Agreement with just cause, in line with art. 14 of the Regulations.
53. In view of the above, the Chamber rejected the counterclaim of the club.
ii. Consequences
54. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.
55. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, amount to USD 90,000 gross,
corresponding to the salaries under the contract.
56. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the gross amount derives from Clause 4.6 of
the Employment Agreement and that the club is entitled to make the respective deductions
over this particular amount in accordance with the relevant national law.
57. What is more, the DRC noted that a further amounts of USD 65,000 net, corresponding to
a sign-on fee and EGP 2,100 net, corresponding to three months of accommodation bonus,
as expressly stipulated in Clause 6 of the Employment Agreement, were due to the player
and requested by the latter in his claim.
58. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber 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 90,000 gross, USD 65,000 net and EGP 2,100 net (three times EGP 700).
59. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest as follows:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-8339
−
−
−
USD 90,000 gross plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23 September 2022 until the date of
the effective payment;
USD 65,000 net plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23 September 2022 until the date of
the effective payment;
EGP 2,100 net plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18 November 2022 until the date of the
effective payment.
60. Having stated the above, the Chamber 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
Chamber 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.
61. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber 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 Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
62. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber 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 Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
63. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber 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 Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 539,900 gross and EGP 23,100 net serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
64. In continuation, the Chamber 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-8339
65. Indeed, the player found employment with CS Sfaxien. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately to TND 8,000 per month
for the season 2022/2023 as well as a sign-on fee of TND 50,000. For the season 2023/2024,
the player was entitled to TND 14,000 per month and a sign-on fee of TND 200,000.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of TND 466,000 (TND 8,000 times 6 plus TND 50,000 plus TNSD 12,000 times
12 plus TND 200,000), corresponding to USD 152,537.
66. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore
decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
67. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
USD 50,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player, excluding the sign-on
fee.
68. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of USD 437,363 gross and EGP 23,100 net to the player (i.e. USD 539,000 and EGP 23,100
minus USD 152,537 plus USD 50,000), which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
69. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 18 November 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
70. 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.
71. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-8339
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
d. Costs
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-8339
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, Nour Zamen Zammouri, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Ismaily SC, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- USD 90,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23 September
2022 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 65,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from
23 September 2022 until the date of effective payment;
- EGP 2,100 net as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18 November 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- EGP 23,100 net and USD 437,363 as compensation for breach of contract without just
cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18 November 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 are rejected.
4.
The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is 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. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-8339
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-8339
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. 17