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 24 February 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

passed on 24 February 2020,

by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,

on the claim presented by the player,

Aaron Kofi Baah, Ghana,

represented by Mr Yussif Alhassan Chibsah

as Claimant

against the club,

Churchill Brothers SC, India

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 20 May 2019, the Ghanaian player, Aaron Kofi Baah (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) concluded an employment agreement with the Indian club, Churchill Brothers Sports Club (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), valid as from “the day / date [the player] report[s] to the management and shall remain in force till the end of the last I-League match / Super Cup of the season 2019-20 or 31st May 2020 whichever is earlier.”

2. Clause 10 of the employment agreement establishes that the Player is entitled to “RS 1,40,000 per month for his agreement period (season 2019-2020).” Moreover, according to Clause 2 and 3, the player is provided with accommodation and medical treatment.

3. On 21 August 2019, the parties signed a document referred to as “Termination of Contract”, stipulating the following:

“This is to confirm that the football player contract made on 20th day of May 2019 between CHURCHILL BROTHERS SPORTS CLUB PVT LTD of Margao, Goa, India herein known as the "Club" and AARON KOFI BAAH, football player (herein known as the player) has on this day been mutually terminated by both parties.

The above mentioned contract which was valid from 10th August 2019 to 31st May 2020 hereby stands mutually terminated with effect from 21st August 2019. The club confirms that the player has been paid all his dues and neither the player nor the club has any outstanding payments to each other. The club has released the player and he is free to join any club of his choice.

The player confirms that the club has paid all his dues and neither the player nor, the club has any outstanding payment to each other. The player undertakes not to claim any further payments from the club.

Signed on this 21st August 2019 at Margao, Goa, India.

4. On 21 August 2019, the player received “full and final payment of [his] wages” in the amount of RS 71,500.

5. On 25 September 2019, the player sent a letter to the club, informing the club that the termination agreement was signed “under duress” and is therefore “null and void.” Moreover, the player offered his services to the club.

6. On 9 October 2019, the player sent another letter to the club, not accepting the premature termination of the relationship, asking to return to India.

7. On 17 October 2019, the club replied that the termination was based on the fact, that “performance was not good” and that all dues “have been paid” as the player acknowledged in the termination agreement.

8. On 26 November 2019, the player lodged a claim against the club and requested the payment of RS 2,151,397 “(approx. EUR 27,068.08)” as compensation, related to the club’s breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.

9. Furthermore, the player requested “the reimbursement of the flight ticket, to be determined by the FIFA Travel department plus 5% interest as from the date of termination of the employment contract.”

10. With regard to the costs related to the case, the player requested the payment of the legal fees in the amount of EUR 2,000.

11. The player is of the opinion, that the club “has forced [him] to sign” the termination agreement.

12. According to the player, it was not in his interest to terminate, especially since there was “no agreement related to the recognition of a compensation, in money or kind.” Moreover, the player only signed the contract because of the threats of the club, regarding the registration of player’s his visa, leaving the player “illegal” in India.

13. The player furthermore argues that the termination was initiated and motivated based on the “Club’s unilateral will”, since the latter “forced” the Player to terminate the contract because his “performances were not good enough to play for the Club” and the agreement “only benefited the Respondent.”

14. As a consequence, the player pleads for the applicability of art. 17 RSTP regarding the compensation due from the club.

15. In his claim, the player provided the following breakdown for the payments above-mentioned compensation due from the club, basing his calculation on the remaining value of the contract:

- The amount of “Rs. 51,334 (approx. EUR 645.88) corresponding to the 11 pending days of salary of August 2019”;

- The amount of “Rs. 1,260,027 (approx. EUR 15,853.32) corresponding to the pending monthly payments of the 2019/2020 season (September 2019 to May 2020).”

16. Furthermore, the player requests additional 6 months of salaries in the amount of “Rs. 840,017.8 (approx. EUR 10,568.88)” due to the “egregious circumstances”.

17. The total compensation payable should, according to the player’s calculation, amount to “RS 2,151,397 (approx. EUR 27,068.08).”

18. In its reply, the club rejected the claim of the player.

19. The Club maintained that after evaluating the performance of the Claimant, it decided that the player did not possess the requisite quality of experience to be a part of the first team of the club. Along this line, it held that it informed the player that he would be taring and playing matches with the reserve team, and that if his performance improved, he would be considered for selection with the first team. The club considered important to highlight that in accordance with the agreement, there is no obligation “to allow the Claimant to train with or play for the first team”.

20. According to the club, the player informed it that he did not want to be part of the reserve team and that he wished to leave the club as soon as possible since the transfer window in Ghana was set to close on 31 August 2019.

21. Along this line, the club sustained that it decided to release the player on such short notice since it is against its policy to keep players against their will and only at the express request of the player.

22. With this in mind, the club explained that on 21 August 2019, the player was invited for a meeting, where it was agreed that the contract would be terminated by mutual consent and that he would be paid part of August 2019. The club held that it also agreed to purchase flights for his return although it did not have the obligation to do so.

23. The club referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the RSTP and held that the player has failed to provide any evidence of coercion and that I has failed to discharge his burden of proof.

24. The club further held that that the player had no obligation to sign the termination agreement but nevertheless he did and that if it was indeed true that the club threatened him, he could have terminated on the grounds of art. 14.2 of the RSTP, however, he chose not to since there was no abusive conduct form the club.

25. The club requested inter alia that the claim is rejected and to impose “exemplary costs to the tune of INR 5,00,000 for initiating frivolous litigation”.

26. Finally, the player explained that he remained unemployed as from the termination of the contract

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter: the DRC judge or the Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that art. 21 of the November 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) establishes that said edition is applicable as from 1 November 2019. Therefore, the November 2019 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

2. Subsequently, DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC Judge is competent to deal with employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension, in this case, a Ghanaian player and an Indian club, with up to a litigious value of CHF 200,000.

3. Furthermore, the Judge 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, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 November 2019, the October 2019 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the Judge entered into the substance of the matter. The Judge started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Judge 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.

5. In this respect, the Judge noted that the parties concluded an employment contract on 20 May 2019.

6. Subsequently, the Judge noted that, on 21 August 2019, the parties mutually terminated the contract, indicating the contents referred in point I. 3 above.

7. Within this context, the Judge took note that the claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the club for breach of contract without just cause, noting, in particular, that the Respondent“has forced [him] to sign” the termination agreement.

8. As a result, the considered that he should first and foremost analyse whether the aforementioned termination agreement had to be deemed as valid and binding and, if that was the case, which legal consequences may arise thereof.

9. In this respect, the Judge first observed that a copy of said agreement was submitted by the Claimant himself in his claim, and that said agreement was signed both by the player and the club.

10. In relation to said arguments, with reference to art. 12 par. 3 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, the Judge noted that there is no sufficient conclusive evidence on file that would indicate that the player was forced to sign the document.

11. What is more, the Judge referred to the jurisprudence of the DRC, according to which any party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise content does so on its own responsibility.

12. The Judge therefore concluded that the player was properly aware of the circumstances surrounding the signature of the termination agreement and therefore consented to it on his own will. As a result, the Judge could only acknowledge that the termination agreement was fully valid and binding.

13. As to the legal consequences of the termination agreement, the Judge noted that said document clearly stipulated the following:

The player confirms that the club has paid all his dues and neither the player nor, the club has any outstanding payment to each other. The player undertakes not to claim any further payments from the club.

14. Thus, the DRC Judge understood that the contents of the termination agreement were clear and that, as a result, the claim of the Claimant had to be rejected in full.

15. Furthermore, as regards the claimed legal expenses and procedural costs, the DRC Judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the longstanding and well-established jurisprudence of the DRC Judge, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the requests relating to legal expenses and procedural costs.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

The claim of the Claimant, Aaron Kofi Baah, is rejected.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS.

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2

CH-1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the DRC judge:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer