Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4281
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 March 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Yahya
Zaydi Omari
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Pharco SC, Egypt
Represented by Nehad Hagag
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Yahya Zaydi Omari, Tanzania
Represented by Felix Majani
INTERVENING PARTY:
Azam FC, Tanzania
Page 3
REF FPSD-4281
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 10 September 2019, the Egyptian club Pharco SC (hereinafter: Pharco) and the Tanzanian
player Yahya Zaydi Omari (hereinafter: the player) concluded an employment contract, valid
for three seasons, that is, the period between the 2019/2020 season and the 2021/2022
season, based on which the Claimant was entitled to receive an amount of USD 18,000,
payable as follows:
-
in the 2019/2020 season: 5 instalments of USD 1,000, to be paid on respectively 30
September, 1 November and 1 December 2019, as well as on 1 March and 1 July 2020;
-
in the 2020/2021 season: 6 instalments of USD 1,000, to be paid on respectively 13
August, 1 October and 1 December 2020, as well as on 1 February, 1 March and 1 July
2021;
-
in the 2021/2022 season: 7 instalments of USD 1,000, to be paid on respectively 13
August, 1 October and 1 December 2021, as well as on 1 February, 1 April, 1 June and 1
July 2022.
2.
On 15 November 2020, the player put Pharco in default for several outstanding payments
and also asking for a release letter.
3.
On 18 November 2020, Pharco allegedly put the player in default to return to its club as soon
as possible, as the first official match of the season 2020/2021 was scheduled.
4.
On 15 January 2021, Pharco, the player and the Tanzanian club Azam FC (hereinafter: Azam)
agreed upon a tripartite loan agreement, based on which the player would be loaned in the
period between 15 January and 15 June 2021 from Pharco to Azam.
5.
On 17 June 2021, Pharco requested the return of the player via TMS to its club.
6.
On 25 July 2021, Pharco requested by email that the player would return to its club, to start
the preparation of the 2021/2022 season with Pharco, however to no avail.
7.
On 12 August 2021, Azam sought to sign the player on a permanent basis, as the player has
explained that his original contract had expired after the season 2020-2021, however, on 15
August 2021, Pharco replied to Azam that the player’s contract would only expire on 1 July
2022.
8.
On 12 September 2021, the player’s lawyer requested Pharco to provide him with a copy of
the original employment agreement, and – in case the player would indeed have signed a
contract for 3 seasons – to pay him the outstanding amounts until August 2021 and to
provide him with a visa and flight ticket.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4281
9.
On 28 September 2021, the player, as a follow up to the letter dated 12 September 2021,
unilaterally terminated the contract - allegedly valid until the end of the 2021/2022 season –
with immediate effect.
10. On 19 October 2021, the FIFA TMS Helpdesk confirmed to the player that ‘There is no
international transfer for the player Yahya Zaydi Omari with the club Pharco SC for the periods
of 2019 in TMS’.
11. After the alleged unilateral termination of the contract (according to Pharco) or after the
expiry of the contract (according to the player), the player, on 20 December 2021, signed a
contract with Azam, valid for the period between 20 December 2021 and 31 December 2023,
based on which he was entitled to a monthly salary of Tanzanian Shilling (TZS) 4,488,889 (or
TZS 3,000,000 net). The amount of TZS 3,000,000 corresponds to approximately USD 1,300.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 12 November 2021, Pharco filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of Pharco
13. In its claim, Pharco explained that the player – after the expiry of the loan period with Azam
– failed to return to its club, and that as a result, it is entitled to compensation for breach of
contract.
14. The requests for relief of Pharco, as amended, were the following:
•
•
•
USD 600,000 as compensation for breach of contract, to be paid by the player to Pharco;
to hold Azam FC jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount of USD
600,000;
to apply sporting sanctions on both the player and Azam.
b. Position of the player and counterclaim
15. In his reply, the player denies the allegations of Pharco and lodged a counterclaim.
16. First of all, the player explains that he and Pharco, in September 2019, signed a contract valid
only for the seasons 2019-2020 and the season 2020-2021, based on which he was entitled
to receive the following amounts:
•
•
a monthly salary of EGP 20,000 (approximately USD 1,270);
two sign-on fees of EGP 400,000 each, due at the beginning of the season 20192020 and 2020-2021.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4281
17. The player further explains that the “real” employment agreement, containing the above
figures, was never given to him, as he only received blank copies of the standard EFA player’s
contract, which he had to sign and fingerprint. Pharco apparently later used these blank
contracts to fill in the value of USD 18,000 for three seasons.
18. In addition, the player explains that Pharco never uploaded a copy of the contract in TMS or
completed the transfer instruction. What is more, according to the player, Pharco promised
in a meeting held in July 2020 to provide him with a copy of the employment contract. Also,
Pharco promised to pay him the last two monthly salaries (implicitly confirming that the
contract would only last for another two months), and the outstanding part of the sign-on
fee in the amount of EGP 100,000 as follows:
•
•
•
10% on the date of the meeting;
40% within 10 days after the meeting;
‘the remaining’ 40% within 20 days after the meeting.
19. What is more, the player explains that he received EGP 300,000 as part of the sign on fee for
the 2019/2020 season, as a result of which at least EGP 500,000 as unpaid part of the signon fees remained outstanding.
20. According to the player, the season 2019/2020 ended on 13 October 2020 and on 18
October 2020, he was given permission to go for a two weeks’ break to Tanzania, during
which period Pharco would clear the outstanding debts and provide the player with a copy
of the contract, which however did not happen.
21. The player furthermore holds that his alleged absence from training sessions between 6 and
19 November 2020 is irrelevant for the matter at hand, as Pharco could have taken disciplinary
measures, but choose not to do so.
22. Overall, the player is of the opinion that based on the documentation on file and the
circumstances described, it can be established that Pharco could not prove that there was a
contract valid until the end of the 2021-2022 season.
23. In case the FIFA DRC would deem that there is a contract in place between the parties until
the end of the 2021-2022 season, it can be concluded that Pharco breached said contract,
by failing to pay the player the salaries for July and August 2021, by failing to provide him a
copy of the contract and by failing to provide the player with a visa and flight ticket.
24. As a result, in case the FIFA DRC would deem that there is a contract in place between the
parties until the end of the 2021/2022 season, the player deems to have had a just cause to
terminate said contract, based on art. 14 and art. 14bis of the FIFA RSTP.
25. The requests for relief of the player were the following:
Page 6
REF FPSD-4281
•
•
•
•
to be awarded USD 2,000 as outstanding salaries for July and August 2021, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from the respective due dates;
to be awarded USD 6,000 as residual value of the contract in the period between 29
September 2021 and 1 July 2022, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 September 2021;
to be awarded USD 3,000 as additional compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
29 September 2021;
sporting sanctions to be imposed on Pharco.
26. Alternatively, should the FIFA DRC decide that the contract was valid until the end of the
2020-2021 season, the player lodged a counterclaim against Pharco, claiming the following
amounts:
•
•
•
to be awarded EGP 100,000 as outstanding part of the sign-on fee for the season
2019-2020, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 September 2021;
to be awarded EGP 400,000 as sign-on fee for the season 2020-2021, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 29 September 2021;
to be awarded EGP 40,000 as outstanding salaries for July and August 2021, plus
5% interest p.a. as from 29 September 2021.
27. Finally, the player points out that Pharco did not prove at all how the alleged damages of USD
600,000 were calculated, and that it did not suffer and/or substantiate any loss or damages.
c. Position of Azam
28. Despite having been invited to do so, Azam failed to present its position to the claim lodged
by Pharco.
d. Reply Pharco to the counterclaim
29. In its reply to the counterclaim lodged by the player, Pharco denies all the player’s allegations
and explains that it paid all his salaries for the season 2019/2020.
30. Moreover, Pharco explains that it informed the player on several occasions that a copy of his
contract could be obtained at the Egyptian Football Association, however to no avail. Also,
Pharco explains that it booked a flight for the player ‘for the duration of his stay’, ‘since the
player signed the contracts of joining Pharco FC on 09.2019 until the end of the last matches
of the second division league on 13.10.2020’.
31. In addition, the player was granted a leave from 2 until 9 January 2020, however did not
return the latest on 10 January 2020, but only returned on 27 January 2020.
Page 7
REF FPSD-4281
32. Later that year, Pharco again granted the player a leave, this time for the period between 18
October and 5 November 2020, however, the player again arrived late and did not join the
team for the preparation of the season 2020/2021, which would start on 2 November 2020.
33. Additionally, Pharco explains that Azam wished to sign the player, and that it made an offer
to Azam for an amount of USD 150,000, however it did not receive a reply.
34. In conclusion, Pharco remains of the opinion that the player had terminated the contract
without just cause and upholds its original claim.
e. Additional information Egyptian FA
35. After having been requested by FIFA, the Egyptian FA confirmed to FIFA that the player was
registered with Pharco as from 30 September 2019, ‘for three years’, from the season
2019/2020 until the season 2021/2022. Additionally, the Egyptian FA explains that the player
was loaned to Azam on 17 January 2021.
36. What is more, the Egyptian FA provided a copy of the contract signed on 10 September 2019,
valid for the period between the season 2019/2020 and the season 2021/2022.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
37. 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 12 November 2021 and submitted for
decision on 10 March 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021
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.
38. 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 2022 edition), the DRC is competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between an Egyptian club and a Tanzanian player, with the
involvement of a Tanzanian club.
39. 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 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 12 November 2021, the August 2021
Page 8
REF FPSD-4281
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
40. 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).
c. Merits of the dispute
41. 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
42. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties are in dispute as to (a) the duration of the contract
entered into force between them and (b) whether or not the player - after he considered the
contract with Pharco expired by law at the end of the 2020/2021 season and confirmed this
in a letter dated 28 September 2021, followed by signing a new contract with Azam in
December 2021 - had terminated the contractual relationship with or without just cause.
43. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine (a) the duration of
the contract concluded between Pharco and the player and (b) as to whether the player could
have validly decided not to return to Pharco after the expiry of his loan period with Azam on
15 June 2021.
44. In this context, the Chamber deemed it first of all relevant to recall the legal principle of the
burden of proof, contained in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which
any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
45. Applying the aforementioned legal principle to the situation at hand, the Chamber reverted
to the facts at the origin of the matter at hand and carefully analysed the documentation
submitted by the parties.
Page 9
REF FPSD-4281
While addressing the question as to the duration of the contract concluded between the
player and Pharco, which is at the basis of the current dispute, the members of the Chamber,
on the one hand, noted that Pharco was of the opinion the player was under contract with it
between 10 September 2019 and the end of the 2021/2022 season. On the other hand, the
members of the Chamber also noted that the player stated that he was only under contract
with Pharco in the period between the sporting season 2019/2020 and the sporting season
2020/2021, but that he never received a copy of the contract from Pharco and/or the Egyptian
Football Association.
46. Finally, the members noted that the Egyptian Football Association – upon request of FIFA –
had effectively provided a copy of an employment contract concluded between the player
and Pharco, valid for the period between 10 September 2019 and the end of the 2021/2022
season, which information is also confirmed in the TMS.
47. What is more, having analysed the documentation on file and referring to the basic principle
of burden of proof, the members of the Chamber concluded that the player was not able to
provide any decisive elements or corroborating documentary evidence, on the basis of which
it could be established that the contract was indeed only concluded for the sporting seasons
2019/2020 and 2020/2021, or that Pharco had effectively agreed to pay him a monthly salary
of EGP 20,000 a two sign-on fees of EGP 400,000 each.
48. At this point, the members of the Chamber deemed that no decisive evidence as to the
duration and amounts due under the contract are available, apart from the information
provided by Pharco and the Egyptian Football Association, as well as the information
contained in the TMS, which all indicate that the contract was valid until the end of the season
2021/2022.
49. Moreover, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to point out that the player
alleged to have terminated the contract with the club on 28 September 2021, allegedly
assuming that the contract was still valid at that point in time, whereas before, he had argued
that the contract was only valid until the end of the season 2020/2021, which was according
to the information contained in the TMS, 31 May 2021.
50. Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Chamber concluded that the player and the club
were bound to a contractual relationship until 1 July 2022, based on which the player was
entitled to a yearly salary of USD 5,000 in the first season, a yearly salary of USD 6,000 in the
second season and a yearly salary of USD 7,000 in the third season.
51. Further entering into the analysis of the substance of the matter, the Chamber took note of
the fact that the player was on loan from Pharco to Azam in the period between 15 January
and 15 June 2021, based on a loan agreement signed between Pharco, Azam and the player.
Based on these circumstances, the members of the Chamber established that the player, after
the expiry of the loan period, in principle had to return to Pharco after 15 June 2021, as his
contract with Pharco remained valid until 1 July 2022.
Page 10
REF FPSD-4281
52. In this respect, the members of the Chamber deemed that from the information on file, it
could be established that shortly after the expiry of the loan period with Azam on 15 June
2021, on 17 June 2021 Pharco requested - via TMS - the return of the player to its club.
Moreover, the Chamber noted that on 25 July 2021, Pharco put the player in default via email
and requested him to return to its club, however to no avail, as the player failed to reply to
said letter. It appeared to the members of the Chamber that the player effectively remained
silent until 12 September 2021, when he reached out to Pharco and requested to be provided
a copy of his contract.
53. What is more, the Chamber deemed it important to point out that the player did not deny
that he did not report back at Pharco’s premises as from 17 June 2021 and only alleged that
Pharco had failed to pay him, during his absence in the months of July and August 2021, his
remuneration in the total amount of USD 2,000.
54. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber – after having analysed all documentation on file –
unanimously reached the conclusion that the player had not submitted any decisive
documentary evidence, establishing that he had been granted authorisation to not return to
the club, or to even (definitely) leave Pharco and subsequently sign an employment contract
with the new club, Azam. Thus, the Chamber decided that the argumentation submitted by
the player that it was effectively the club which had breached the contract – despite the fact
that some salaries remained outstanding – could not be followed, as it was the player who
did not render his services to Pharco in the first place after 15 June 2021.
55. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that on 28 September 2021, the
player had terminated the employment contract in force between him and Pharco without
just cause.
ii. Consequences
56. 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 player.
57. The Chamber first observed that it had to address whether at the date of termination of the
contract, i.e. 28 September 2021, there was any remuneration due by Pharco to the player,
as the player, despite a breach of the contract which can be attributed to him, would still be
entitled to his potential outstanding remuneration.
58. In this respect, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the outstanding remuneration
at the time of termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player as laid
down in his claim, are equivalent to two salaries of USD 1,000 each, due on respectively 1
July and 13 August 2021, amounting to USD 2,000 in total.
Page 11
REF FPSD-4281
59. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 2,000 (i.e. two
times USD 1,000).
60. 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 at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from their respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
61. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the club by the player 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, the fees
and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract)
and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the player to the club 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 nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
65. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the club, the Chamber proceeded with
the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract until its
term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 6,000 (i.e. the 6
instalments of USD 1,000 each due by Pharco to the player in the period between 28
September 2021 and 1 July 2022) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
66. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the player had signed an employment contract
with another club during the relevant period of time. According to the constant practice of
Page 12
REF FPSD-4281
the Chamber, as well as art. 17 par. 1 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 due by a player to his former club. In particular, the
Chamber explained that its standard practice is to calculate the average between the player’s
remuneration with his former club and his remuneration with the new club, for the exact
same period of time comprised between the early termination of the employment contract
with the old club and the original expiry date of such contract.
67. Indeed, the player found new employment with Azam on 20 December 2021. In accordance
with the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to TZS 3,000,000 (or
approximately USD 1,297 per month), which corresponds – in the overlapping period
between the start of the contract and 1 July 2022 - to a total amount of USD 8,190.
68. Thus, the Chamber concluded that between the date of early termination of the player’s
contract with his former club Pharco and its original expiry date, the average between his
remuneration with Pharco and his current remuneration under the contract with Azam
amounts to USD 7,095.
69. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the amount of USD 7,095
to the club (i.e. the average between the player’s remuneration with Pharco and his
remuneration with Azam), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
70. Furthermore, taking into consideration Pharco’s request, as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award Pharco interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 12 November 2021 until the date of effective payment.
71. Lastly, in accordance with the unambiguous content of article 17 par. 2 of the Regulations,
the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e. Azam, shall be jointly and severally
liable for the payment of compensation, plus applicable interest.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
72. 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.
Pharco
73. 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
Page 13
REF FPSD-4281
duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
74. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that Pharco 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 Pharco in accordance with art. 24
par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
75. Pharco 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.
76. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans 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.
The player
77. Next, the Chamber highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the failure to pay
the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in official matches
up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be
of up to six months.
78. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to Pharco within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the creditor, a restriction on playing in official
matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become immediately effective on the
player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
79. The player shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the club in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present
decision.
80. The Chamber 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.
Azam
81. Lastly, 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
Page 14
REF FPSD-4281
duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
82. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that Azam (being jointly liable for the
payment of the compensation for breach of contract due by the player to Pharco), 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 Pharco, 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 Azam in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
83. Azam shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account provided
by Pharco in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
84. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans 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
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-4281
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Pharco SC, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Yahya Zaydi Omari, is partially
accepted.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the
following amount(s):
- USD 7,095 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 12 November 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
The Intervening Party, Azam FC, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount
in accordance with the abovementioned number 3.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
6.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the
following amount(s):
- USD 2,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective
payment as follows:
• on the amount of USD 1,000 as from 2 July 2021;
• on the amount of USD 1,000 as from 14 August 2021.
7.
Any further claims of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant are rejected.
8.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
9.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021
edition), if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of
notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
On the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening Party
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.
On the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
Page 16
REF FPSD-4281
1.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be restricted on playing in official matches, up
until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to
six months on playing in official matches.
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.
10. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent and/or Respondent / Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 7
and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
11. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17
REF FPSD-4281
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