F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 18 June 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 June 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Aatif CHAHECHOUHE
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Mohamed Muzammil (Singapore), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
Aatif Chahechouhe, France
represented by Mr. Osama Al Sabbagh
RESPONDENT:
Antalyaspor, Turkey
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 17 June 2019, the French player, Aatif Chahechouhe (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and the
Turkish club Antalyaspor (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: contract), valid as of 17 June 2019 until 31 May 2021.
2. According to the contract, the club undertook to pay the player the following amounts for the
seasons 2019/2020 and 2020/2021:
- Season 2019/2020: total guaranteed remuneration of EUR 1,035,000 composed of an
advance payment of EUR 215,000 (one instalment of EUR 125,000 due on 10 August 2019
and one of EUR 90,000 due on 10 September 2019); EUR 800,000 payable in ten equal
instalments of EUR 80,000 each due on the last day of each month between August 2019
and May 2020; EUR 20,000 payable in two instalments of EUR 10,000 due on 1 September
2019, respectively 1 February 2020 for the player’s accommodation, flight and car expenses;
- Season 2020/2021: total guaranteed remuneration of EUR 1,035,000 composed of an
advance payment of EUR 215,000 (one instalment of EUR 125,000 due on 10 August 2020
and one of EUR 90,000 due on 10 September 2020); EUR 800,000 payable in ten equal
instalments of EUR 80,000 each due on the last day of each month between August 2020
and May 2021; EUR 20,000 payable in two instalments of EUR 10,000 due on 1 September
2020, respectively 1 February 2021 for the player’s accommodation, flight and car expenses.
3. Furthermore, the contract provided for a bonus in the amount of EUR 50,000 if the player plays
at least 15 official matches during the relevant season, to be paid on 15 June.
4. Art. 18 of the contract provided the following:
“The Player may or may not be included in the A team list at the Coach’s discretion. In case the
Player is not included in the A team list, the Player here by accepts that the decision is
unavoidable, and he will be not entitled to any rights, especially the right of unilateral
termination for sporting just cause. The Player accepts this matter in advance”.
5. Art. 19 of the contract provided the following:
“The Club may decide for the Player to train alone or with another category of the team besides
the A team, subject to the condition to receive the opinion of the Coach.”
6. On 21 January 2020, the club sent a letter to the player, authorizing the Player to “leave the
premises of the Club and to conduct transfer negotiations” until 28 January 2020. Said
permission was extended until 3 February 2020 by the club in a second letter dated 27 January
2019.
7. On 3 February 2020, the club informed the player via letter that since he had allegedly been
acting improperly during training sessions and was in an inadequate physical condition, he was
to train following a training schedule provided.
8. On the same day, the club “cancelled” the previous letter, informing the player that it had been
sent due to an oversight, and that following the recommendation of the head coach, the player
was to follow the training schedule enclosed.
9. On 9 February 2020, the player put the club in default to inform him as to his situation, namely
as to why he had to train alone, and to have more information on his registration. The player
further requested the payment of EUR 160,000 corresponding to the salaries of December and
January and gave 15 days for the club to reintegrate the player, confirm his registration status
and to pay the overdue.
10. On 10 February 2020, upon the player’s request, the Turkish Football Federation (hereinafter:
TFT) sent the player a list of 28 registered players of the club for the second part of the season.
The player was not on said list.
11. Between 11 February 2020 and 27 February 2020, the parties exchanged several
communications, in which the player requested to be reregistered and eventually to settle the
matter amicably, to no avail.
12. On 27 February 2020, the player terminated the contract with the club since he was deregistered
by the latter.
13. On 6 March 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract,
requesting the following:
- “To establish that the Respondent has been in material breach of the contract(irreversible deregistration
and exclusion for at least five months) without any justification, resulting in
termination of contract for just cause by the Claimant,
- To establish that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant breach of contract damages in the
amount of EUR 1,325,000,
- To establish that the Respondent must, in addition, pay specificity of sports damages in the
amount of EUR 517,500,
- In the likely event of mitigation by the Chamber, to establish that the Respondent must also
pay to the Claimant Additional Compensation in the amount of net EUR 517,500 in view of
the egregious circumstances,
- 5% annual interest on all the above from the date of contract termination, in accordance with
Swiss law – Art. 102 CO et seq.”
14. In support of his claim, the Claimant referred to all the events that transpired in the months
preceding his termination of the contract (cf. I.6. to I.12 above). Furthermore, the Claimant
alleged that he was excluded from training as from 3 February 2020 and had to train alone or
with youth teams and did not provide serious training possibilities.
15. The Claimant deems that he terminated the contract with just cause since the club lost interest
in his services and de-registered him for the second part of the season as well as due to the
club’s abusive behaviour. In this regard, the player referred to Art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players.
16. Moreover, the player argued having tried to settle the matter amicably before terminating the
contractual relationship as ultima ratio.
17. The Claimant also submitted a printout from the website tansfermarkt.com as well as from the
Turkish Football Federation showing that he appeared in 17 matches between 18 August 2019
until 19 January 2020.
18. The player requested, inter alia, “compensation” for breach of contract in the amount of EUR
1,325,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract, as follows;
- EUR 240,000 corresponding to the salaries of March, April and May 2020;
- EUR 50,000 as bonus due in accordance with the respective clause included in contract;
- EUR 1,035,000 as salaries due during the season 2020/2021.
19. In reply to the claim, the Respondent held that the player was in the first A team submitted to
the Turkish Football Federation on 15 January 2020, part of the second A list submitted to the
latter federation on 18 January 2020, and part of the third A list submitted to the federation on
21 January 2020.
20. The Respondent further held that because the Claimant was allegedly trying to find a new club,
and authorized to do so by the club, the player was not included in the final A list player team
sent to the Turkish Football Federation.
21. According to the Respondent, the Claimant was trained alone by two coaches holders of UEFA
A licenses. The Respondent denied having had an abusive conduct toward the player with the
aim of making him terminate the contract.
22. The club held that it paid all the salaries due to the player, and was willing, after the player
proposed it himself, to try and settle the matter amicably.
23. The club held that the player participated in the first match of the second half of the season on
19 January 2020 but during that match, allegedly, the player’s attitude was bad and he was
replaced before the end of the first half.
24. The player requested himself to be allowed to prospect other teams, showing that he was no
longer interested in playing for the club. He was authorized by the club to prospect other teams
until 3 February 2020 as per the player’s alleged request. According to the club, it had until 2
February 2020 to inform the Turkish Football Federation of its final list of players to be registered
and considered that since the player was prospecting other teams, he was no longer interested
in the club.
25. According to the club, the player never complained during training about the training schedule
he was subjected to.
26. The club further held that the player had been absent from 5 trainings (14, 15, 17, 20 and 21
February 2020 and provided internal documentation in this regard.
27. The club argued that the player was not deregistered but simply not incorporated in the A team
list, stating that deregistration could only be made by the Turkish Football Federation and was
done following the termination of the contract by the player. Indeed, the player was simply not
in the list of 28 players allowed to play for the Super League.
28. On the termination of the player, the club held that the player by prospecting with other clubs
and that since he had been taken out of the A team list he had “accepted the probability of
being excluded from the A team list”.
29. The club additionally sustained that the player did not provide any evidence of abusive conduct.
The club added that the contract provided that he could be sent to train alone.
30. The club pointed out that the last notification of the player prior to the termination was only 7
day before the termination.
31. Finally, as to the bonus of EUR 50,000, the club deemed that since the payment was due on 15
June 2020 and the player terminated the contract in February, that amount was not due to the
player.
32. After being requested to do so, the player informed the FIFA administration that he remained
unemployed since his unilateral termination of the contract.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
33. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it
was competent to deal with the present matter. In this respect, he took note that the matter
was submitted to FIFA on 6 March 2020. Consequently, the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter in hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the
Procedural Rules).
34. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in
accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2020 edition of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is competent to deal with the matter at
sake which concerns an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between a
French player and a Turkish club.
35. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed
that in accordance to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 6 March
2020, the March 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
36. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the
substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as
well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, it 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.
37. First of all, the Chamber noted that the parties entered into an employment contract valid as
from 17 June 2019 until 31 May 2021. It remained undisputed that in January 2020, the
Claimant was authorised to seek other employment opportunities and to leave the club premises
to conduct potential transfer negotiations.
38. Thereafter, throughout the month of February 2020, the Claimant complained towards the
Respondent of the latter’s decision to send the player to train alone and the player enquired
about the situation with regard to his registration. During this time, the parties also exchanged
communications with respect to a possible amicable settlement of the dispute; however, no
settlement could be found.
39. Furthermore, on 10 February 2020, upon the player’s request, the Turkish Football Federation
sent the player a list of 28 registered players of the club for the second part of the season. The
player was not on said list.
40. The above-described facts led the Claimant to terminate the contract unilaterally on 27 February
2020. The Claimant now seeks compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR
1,325,000 plus EUR 517,500 as damages for the specificity of sport, plus interest. The claimant
deems that he had just cause to terminate the contract in light of the Respondent’s “irreversible”
decision to de-register him and of the Respondent’s alleged abusive conduct, i.e. him being
forced to train alone or with youth teams. The Claimant refers in this context to art. 14 par. 2
of the Regulations.
41. The Respondent, for its part, denies the Claimant’s claim and in particular the fact that the player
was de-registered. The Claimant emphasises that the player was merely not counted in the list
of players of the team due to the fact that he had been seeking other employment opportunities,
thus showing a lack of interest to further pursue the employment relationship.
42. Furthermore, the Respondent denied any accusation of abusive conduct as the Claimant
allegedly kept being trained by two coaches holders of the UEFA A coaching license. The
Respondent held that the Claimant had shown a bad attitude on the pitch and had been absent
from training on 5 occasions in February 2020.
43. Finally, the Respondent maintained that it had not been opposed to an amicable resolution of
the matter, but the player instead chose to terminate the contract unilaterally. The Respondent
also emphasised that it had fulfilled of all its financial obligations towards the Claimant.
44. In light of the parties’ divergent positions in this matter, the Chamber established that the issue
at the centre of this matter is to determine whether the Claimant had just cause to terminate
the contract on 27 February 2020 and to determine the consequences thereof.
45. In its assessment, the Chamber first duly acknowledged that it had remained uncontested that
the player was not registered in the list of players qualified to play the Turkish Super League.
Furthermore, and with reference to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a
party alleging a fact carries the respective burden of proof, the Chamber underlined that there
is no evidence on file demonstrating that the player was aware that he was going to be
deregistered, nor that he was made aware that such deregistration would, allegedly, be
temporary in nature.
46. Considering the Super League is the main competition in Turkey, not being registered for that
competition meant that the player was effectively prevented from competing and exercising his
profession. In this regard, the Chamber recalled the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC,
according to which, among a player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract, is not
only his right to a timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training and
to be given the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official
matches. In this context, in principle, by refusing to register a player, a club is effectively barring,
in an absolute manner, the potential access of a player to competition and, as such, violating
one of his fundamental rights as a football player.
47. In continuation, the DRC pointed out that it had remained uncontested that the player had been
sent to train alone and/or with youth teams, this without any explanation. The Claimant had
repeatedly requested clarification on his registration and to be allowed to train with the 1st
team, to no avail, leading him to terminate the contract.
48. In light of the above circumstances, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that, on
27 February 2020, the various breaches on the Respondent’s part, i.e. the uncertainty as to
whether the player would be re-registered and its decision to send the Claimant to train alone
and/or with youth teams, had reached a severity which caused the Claimant’s confidence in the
continuation of the employment relationship to be lost. Furthermore, the Claimant had duly put
the Respondent in default of remedying the relevant contractual breaches before he terminated
the contract.
49. The above considerations led the Chamber to conclude that the Claimant terminated the
contract on 27 February 2020 with just cause, and that, consequently, the Respondent is to be
held liable for the early termination of the contract.
50. Having established that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment
contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequence of such termination. Taking
into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from the club
an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract.
51. The Chamber thus focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, it firstly recalled 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.
52. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to
whether the pertinent 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 noted that the contract did not include
any such clause. Therefore, the compensation shall be established in accordance with 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.
53. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber reverted to the player’s claim for compensation for
breach of contract in the amount of EUR 1,325,000 plus EUR 517,500 as damages for the
specificity of sport, plus interest. With respect to the amount of EUR 1,325,000, the Chamber
duly noted that this amount corresponds to the monies payable to the player under the terms
of the contract until 31 May 2021. The Chamber thus concluded that the residual value of the
contract at the time of the club’s termination indeed amounted to EUR 1,325,000 corresponding
to the salaries of March, April and May 2020 as well as the entire season 2020/2021, plus the
bonus of EUR 50,000 due in accordance with the contract (cf. I.3. above).
54. With respect to the bonus in the amount of EUR 50,000, the DRC held that the Claimant had
duly proven that the condition to acquire the bonus, i.e. participation in at least 15 official
matches during the relevant season, had indeed been met. This is, the Claimant produce
evidence that he had participated in a total of 17 official matches in the season 2019/2020. In
this regard, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that the fact that the due date for payment
of the amount was 15 June 2020 could be seen as an exemption for the Respondent from paying
such amount, as the Claimant had already met the target of 15 official matches on the date of
termination of the contract.
55. In conclusion, the Chamber held that the amount of EUR 1,325,000 shall serve as a basis for the
calculation of the compensation for breach of contract.
56. 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 able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, 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.
57. The DRC acknowledged that the Claimant had remained unemployed following the termination
of the contract with just cause.
58. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 1,325,000 to the
Claimant as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest per annum as from the date
of the claim, i.e. 6 March 2020, until the date of effective payment.
59. With respect to the Claimant’s claim for the amount of EUR 517,500 for the specificity of sport,
the Chamber decided to reject such claim due to a lack of evidence and of contractual basis.
Also, for the sake of clarity, the DRC established that the player’s claim for the same amount in
relation to “additional compensation” in light of alleged egregious circumstances is rejected in
light of the fact that the termination of the contract in casu is not linked to overdue payables
(cf. art. 17 par. 1 ii. of the Regulations).
60. In conclusion, the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted and the Respondent must pay the
amount of EUR 1,325,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 6 March 2020 until the date of effective payment. Any further claims of the
Claimant are rejected.
61. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
62. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has
competence to impose a sanction on the club. In particular, the sanction against clubs shall
consist in a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until
the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
63. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that in the event that the Club does
not pay the amount due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player,
following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the
club, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the
maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective
on the club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
64. The Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to
its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of
the Regulations.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Aatif Chahechouhe, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Antalyaspor, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 1,325,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 6 March 2020 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777