Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5131
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 April 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mohammad
Abu Zraiq
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Jérôme Perlemuter (France), member
CLAIMANT:
Al Ramtha SC, Jordan
Represented by Osaid Alkahder
RESPONDENT 1:
Al Ahli Tripoli SC, Libya
Represented by Mr Emad Hanayneh
RESPONDENT 2:
Mohammad Abu Zraiq, Jordan
Represented by Mr Emad Hanayneh
Page 2
REF FPSD-5131
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 2 August 2018, the Jordan club Al Ramtha SC (hereinafter: Al Ramtha) and the Jordan
player Mohammad Abu Zraiq (hereinafter: the player), born on 30 December 1997,
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid between 2 August 2018
and the end of the football season 2023.
2.
Based on the contract, the player was entitled to the following amounts:
•
•
•
•
•
Jordan Dinar (JOD) 400 per month in the 2018 season;
JOD 500 as housing allowance per month in the 2019 season;
JOD 600 as housing allowance per month in the 2020 season;
JOD 700 as housing allowance per month in the 2021 season;
JOD 800 as housing allowance per month in the 2022 season.
3.
On 10 March 2021, the player put the club in default for the outstanding salaries of JOD
3,200 for the first year of the contract and the amount of JOD 1,800 for the third year,
providing it to 15 days’ deadline to remedy its default.
4.
On 25 November 2021, the sporting season 2021 in Jordan ended.
5.
On 29 November 2021, the player decided ‘to unilaterally terminate the contract due to the
expiration of the protected period’, on the same occasion requesting the club to remedy its
default and paying him the amount of JOD 4,100 as outstanding salaries within 15 days,
however to no avail.
6.
On 23 January 2022, the Jordan Football Association (JFA) informed Al Ramtha that the
Libyan club Al Ahli Tripoli SC (hereinafter: Al Ahli), via the TMS, had requested via the Libyan
Football Association (LFA) the issuance of the ITC for the player.
7.
On 31 January 2022, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber passed a decision,
allowing the provisional registration of the player with Al Ahli.
8.
In January 2022, the player signed a new contract with Al Ahli, valid between 11 January
2022 and 11 July 2022, based on which he was entitled to a total amount of USD 150,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
9.
On 11 February 2022, Al Ramtha filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of Al Ramtha
10. In its claim, Al Ramtha explains that in January 2021, the player fled to Libya during the
protected period of the contract and that shortly before, he ‘received all financial funds that
were to be given to him till his last day in Jordan (December 2021)’.
Page 3
REF FPSD-5131
11. What is more, Al Ramtha explains that it suffered significant damages due to the sudden
departure of the player.
12. Al Ramtha, in its claim before FIFA , requested the payment of a total amount of EUR
1,000,000 by the player and/or Al Ahli (EUR 500,000 on the player and EUR 500,000 on Al
Ahli) as ‘financial fine’ for the breach of contract of the player and the inducement of Al Ahl
to do so.
b. Position of the player
13. In reply to the claim, the player explained that he was continuously afraid of Al Ramtha failing
to pay his monthly salaries, as a result of which he put the club in default on 10 March 2021.
14. What is more, the player explains that after the sending of the default letter dated 10 March
2021, Al Ramtha started deducting JOD 100 from the player’s dues without legal basis for
the remainder of the season 2021.
15. In addition, the player explains that despite his dissatisfaction with the behavior of Al Ramtha,
he continued to provide his services during the season 2021.
16. In conclusion, the player argues that he terminated the contract with just cause, as (a) the
protected period had expired and (b) “6” monthly salaries for the period between January,
February, March, August and November 2021 remained outstanding, and JOD 100 was
illegally deducted from the salaries for the months of April, May, June, July, September and
October 2021.
17. In conclusion, the player and Al Ahli request that the claim of Al Ramtha be rejected and that
the termination was made with just cause, as a result of which no compensation for breach
of contract is payable by either the player or Al Ahli.
c. Position of Al Ahli
18. Al Ahli submitted the same position as the player, as it was represented by the same legal
representative.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. 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 11 February 2022 and submitted for
decision on 7 April 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.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5131
20. 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. a) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute
between a Jordan player, a Libyan club and a Jordan club, in relation to the maintenance of
contractual stability where there has been an ITC-request and claim from an interesting party
in relation to said ITC-request.
21. 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 11 February 2022, the August 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
22. 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
23. 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
24. 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 whether or not the player had a
valid reason to unilaterally terminate the contract with Al Ramtha on 29 November 2021,
and consequently, in January 2022, joined the Libyan club Al Ahli.
25. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine whether or not
the player, on 29 November 2021, had a just cause to terminate the contract, and if so, what
the consequences of said termination would be, in view of the allegations of Al Ramtha that
the player had no just cause and is obliged to pay compensation for breach of contract to Al
Ramtha.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5131
26. First of all, and before entering into the substance of the matter at hand, the members of the
Chamber deemed it vital to recall the content of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules
(October 2021 edition), according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged
fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. With this in mind, the Chamber deemed that
it was up to Al Ramtha, as the claiming party, to prove that the player, as it indicated its claim,
had indeed terminated the contract without just cause in the protected period, by signing a
new contract with Al Ahli.
27. Entering into the substance of the matter at hand, the members of the Chamber first of all
noted that the player was born on 30 December 1997 and at the moment is 24 years old.
Thus, it can be established that the contract was concluded before the 28th birthday of the
player and that the protected period consists of a period of three entire seasons or three
years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract.
28. In the matter at hand, the contract between the player and Al Ramtha was concluded on 2
August 2018, and thus, the period of three years in principle ended on 2 August 2021, as
well as that - as discussed between the parties and based on the information provided by the
player and Al Ahli, the period of three seasons ended on 25 November 2021.
29. Based on the foregoing, the members of the Chamber were confutable to conclude that the
termination of the contract by the player on 29 November 2021, took place after the
protected period had expired.
30. What is more, the members deemed it important that, upon analysis of the claim of Al
Ramtha, it could not find any elements on the basis of which it could be established that the
player had terminated the contract with Al Ramtha without just cause, as no decisive
documentary evidence was provided on the basis of which it could be concluded that the
player had received all his financial dues until December 2021.
31. To the contrary, the members of the Chamber took note that based on the allegations of the
player, at the moment of termination, 29 November 2021, several salaries had remained
outstanding. As said, Al Ramtha, in its claim, could not provide any documentary evidence
that it duly paid all the salaries to the player, and thus members of the Chamber came to the
conclusion that Al Ramtha had not duly met its burden of proof in relation to its allegation
that the player had terminated the contract with Al Ramtha during the protected period
without just cause.
32. In view of the foregoing, based on the documentation submitted by Al Ramtha and the
contestations and explanations provided by both the player and Al Ahli, the members of the
Chamber decided that it cannot be concluded that the termination of the contract by the
player on 29 November 2021 was made without just cause.
ii. Consequences
Page 6
REF FPSD-5131
33. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that the claim of Al Ramtha
is to be rejected.
d. Costs
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5131
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Al Ramtha SC, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8
REF FPSD-5131
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 9