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 9 April 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 April 2020,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member
Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Kings Football Academy, Cameroon,
as Claimant
against the club,
Osmanlispor FK, Turkey,
represented by Mr Talat Emre Koçak
as Respondent I
and against the player
Djouffo Leonel Wamba, Cameroon
as Respondent II
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
represented by Mr Maître Marc Ladreit de Lacharriere
I. Facts of the case
1. On 5 September 2018, the Cameroonian club, Kings Football Academy (hereinafter:
the Claimant or the Cameroonian club), and the Cameroonian player, Djouffo
Leonel Wamba (hereinafter: the player), concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until the end of the
2021/2022 season.
2. According to the contract, the player was inter alia entitled to receive a total
remuneration in the amount of Central African CFA Franc (XAF) 4,000,000, payable
in 16 instalments of XAF 250,000 every three months.
3. As per the Claimant, considering that the U-17 African Nation Championship was
scheduled for April 2019 in Tanzania, the player was invited to participate in the
national U-17 training camp, organised by the Cameroonian Football Federation
(hereinafter: the FECAFOOT) in January 2019. In this context, as per the Claimant, it
authorised the player’s participation and allegedly paid the costs of his trip, food
and accommodation during the entire training camp.
4. According to the Claimant, after having concluded the national U-17 training camp,
the player did not resume his activities with the Cameroonian club and did not
participate in any official football match for more than four months.
5. Subsequently, upon the player’s return, the Claimant allegedly convened him to
explain the reasons of his absence. As per the Claimant, during the meeting with the
player, the latter allegedly held that his father had been managing to conclude a
professional contract with a Turkish club.
6. In this context, the Claimant sustained that, after having conducted its researches, it
found out that the Turkish club was Osmanlispor FK.
7. As per the Claimant, on 1 July 2019, it contacted FIFA in order to denounce this
incident and obtain compensation for the damages caused by the actions of the
player and the Turkish club, Osmanlispor FK (hereinafter: the Respondent or the
Turkish club).
8. In this respect, on 27 August 2019, FIFA informed the Claimant that its petition had
to comply with the mandatory formalities stipulated in art. 9 par. 1 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber.
9. Bearing in mind the foregoing, on 16 September 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim
against the Respondent and the player’s father, requesting the following:
a) That the player’s father, Mr Michel Wamba, be ordered to pay to the
Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 71,600;
b) That the Respondent be ordered to pay to the Claimant compensation in the
amount of EUR 240,000;
c) That the Respondent be ordered to pay to the Claimant compensation for
moral damages in the amount of EUR 100,000.
10. As regards the claim lodged against the Respondent, the Claimant maintained that
the Turkish club had allegedly induced the player to breach the employment
contract with the Claimant, since the Respondent had offered the player signing a
professional contract without having previously contacted the Cameroonian club.
11. In this context, the Claimant highlighted that the player, allegedly encouraged by
the Respondent, breached the provisions of clause VIII of the contract.
12. In view of the above, the Claimant sustained that, as a consequence of the player’s
absence during the official football matches, the Claimant could not reach the top
division and, therefore, suffered an important financial loss.
13. Lastly, the Claimant also pointed out that, as a consequence of the player’s breach
of the contract, the Cameroonian club allegedly lost its right to claim training
compensation for the period in which the player should have been training with its
club, i.e. four seasons. In this respect, the Claimant pointed out that it should have
received the amount of EUR 240,000 as training compensation had the contract
been executed until its original date expiry.
14. The Respondent failed to provide its reply before the closure of the investigation.
15. In spite of having been invited to do so, the player did not reply to the claim.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
referred to the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 16 September 2019 and decided on 9 April 2020. Therefore,
the Chamber concluded that the 2019 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable
to the matter at hand.
2. Furthermore, the DRC 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 16 September 2019, the June
2019 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
3. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 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 aforementioned Regulations, the DRC is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Cameroonian club against a
Turkish club and a Cameroonian player.
4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the DRC started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC
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. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that the parties entered into an employment
contract valid as from 5 September 2018 until the end of the 2011/2012 season,
according to which the Claimant was inter alia entitled to receive the total amount
of XAF 4,000,000 (cf. point I.2. above).
6. Taking into account the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber deemed that the central
issue in the matter at stake was to determine whether the player had breached the
contract without just cause by concluding a new employment contract with the
Respondent.
7. In this context, the DRC first recalled that, in accordance with the principle of the
burden of proof set out in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the party claiming
a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.
8. In this respect, the members of the DRC considered that the Claimant had not
provided substantial documentary evidence demonstrating that the player had
been registered with the Respondent.
9. Furthermore, the DRC took note of the fact that the alleged registration of the
player with the Respondent did not appear in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
10. Considering all the above, the DRC recapped that the Claimant failed to
demonstrate with corroborating documentation that the player had been
registered with the Respondent. Consequently, as regard the Claimant’s request to
receive compensation for financial and moral damages from the Respondent, the DRC rejected the Claimant’s claim on the basis that the latter did not submit
sufficient evidence sustaining its arguments.
11. In addition, as regards the Claimant’s request to condemn the father of the player
to pay the amount of EUR 71,600, the members of the Chamber recalled that, in
accordance with art. 6 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, “Parties are member
associations of FIFA, clubs, players, coaches or licensed match agents”. Therefore,
taking into account the content of the aforementioned provision, the DRC
concluded that the player’s father cannot be considered as a party in front of FIFA.
12. Lastly, the members of the Chamber further took note of the fact that, on 11 March
2020, the Administration of FIFA informed the Claimant that “all claims related to
training compensation […] must be submitted and managed through the Transfer
Matching System (TMS)”.
13. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the Claimant’s claim.
*****
II. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Kings Football Academy, is rejected insofar as it is
admissible.
*****
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 article 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
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: info@tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
________________________________
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer