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 21 February 2020

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 February 2020,

in the following composition:

Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairman

Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member

Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member

on the claim presented by the club,

Tout Puissant Mazembe, Congo

represented by Messrs Grégory Ernes and Gauthier Bouchat

as Claimant

and the player,

Ben Malango, Congo

represented by the Union des Footballeurs du Congo

as First Respondent

and the club,

Raja Casablanca, Morocco

represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri, Andre OIiveira De Meira Ribeiro, Rayanna Gabriela Machado Silva and Vitor Neves Restivo

as Second Respondent

regarding a dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. The Claimant asserts that on 16 December 2016, the club Tout Puissant Mazembe (hereinafter: TP Mazembe or the club) and the player Mr Ben Malango (hereinafter: the player) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 15 December 2021.

2. According to the aforementioned contract, TP Mazembe undertook to pay the player a monthly salary of USD 1,000.

3. Clause 5.2 of the contract (hereinafter: the compensation clause) further stipulated that “in accordance with art. 17 of the RSTP, the amount of USD 2,000,000 is due as compensation in case of breach or unilateral termination of the contract” (free translation from original in French).

4. The contract also stipulated, confusingly that “in view of the fact that on 16 December 2016 the parties concerned signed an employment contract for the period of 16 December 2016 to 15 December 2021, the parties mutually agree on the termination of the previous contract, extinguishing any sort of responsibility of a party towards the other” (free translation from original in French).

5. The existence of this contract is, however, contested by the player, who claimed that his signature on the document which the club refers to as the contract between the parties was forged by the club. The player held that his only contract with the club was signed in 2014 for a period of 5 years. He was however unable to provide a copy of the said contract as he allegedly lost his copy.

6. In January 2019, the South African club Orlando Pirates (hereinafter: OP) made an offer of EUR 400,000 to the club for the transfer of the player, which the club refused via a WhatsApp conversation between the club’s representative and OP.

7. On 25 May 2019, the player asked for the intervention of the Congolese players’ union, which wrote to the club on 7 June 2019:

 Asking for a copy of the 2014 contract;

 Claiming that the player was entitled to terminate his contract if the club did not make him an offer during the 6 months prior to the term of the contract.

8. The club replied on 8 June 2019, stating that "(…) si votre membre a perdu la copie de son contrat, il apparait clairement qu’il en a aussi perdu tous les repairs“ (free translation: if your member lost a copy of the contract, it also appears that he has lost all his perspective). In that regard, the club indicated that the parties had extended the contract on 16 December 2016 for 5 years.

9. By letters addressed to the club on 12 and 19 June 2019, the player contested the signature of the contract and expressed his wish to play with another club, with whom he had already started negotiating.

10. On 24 June 2019, OP wrote to the club, stating that the player “is able to sign a pre-contract with the Orlando Pirates Football Club, as his contract with Tout Puissant Mazembe that ends within the next 6 months has not been provided to him after several official requests made from the player in the past few weeks” and requested the player’s TPO declaration signed by the club.

11. On 25 June 2019, the club answered, indicating that the player was still contractually bound to the club until 15 December 2021, emphasising the contractual and regulatory breaches committed by OP and the player, and inviting the latter to be present at the club’s trainings immediately.

12. On 27 June 2019, the player reiterated his position to the club, regretting the club’s attitude.

13. On 28 June 2019, OP reiterated its request, indicating that the player was not bound by any employment contract, thereby inviting the club to provide a copy of any said contract. On the same day, the club provided OP and the player with a copy of the contract, as well as a return flight for the player.

14. On 1 July 2019, the player stated to the club via email that he had never signed the said contract and that it was not his signature on the document. Moreover, he informed the club that he would not return.

15. On the same day, the club replied, rejecting the player’s allegations, indicating that the contract had been legalised in front of a notary and asking him to return to the club. Moreover, the club also claimed that the player had signed a contract with the company Sport Equity.

16. In these circumstances, OP replied on 17 July 2019, indicating that: “The contention that he is contracted beyond this season, according to your new document, comes as a complete surprise and had we known of it we would certainly not have engaged with him, or with you about releasing him (save if our intention had been to seek to agree a transfer). ln light of the document you have sent us this is now a matter that must be resolved between you and the player. We understand that the player takes issue with the document but that is not a matter we are able to comment on or wish to. We have no intention of involving ourselves any further in this matter consequently and have informed the intermediary that represents him of our position.”

17. On 3 August 2019, the club Raja Casablanca (hereinafter: Raja or the new club), via its representative, wrote to TP Mazembe expressing its interest in signing the player “since it has been assure by the latter that he is not under any contractual obligation”. Raja however highlighted its concern as it was aware of a potential claim by the club in front of FIFA concerning the player’s situation. In its reply, the club reiterated the contractual situation of the player and asked the new club not to sign the player.

18. On 7 August 2019, Raja wrote the following to TP Mazembe:

19. By a reply on the same day, TP Mazembe denied having ever forged the contract and threatened Raja with criminal proceedings if it maintained its defamatory statements and if it continued to act as an accomplice to the player’s agent for his fraudulent activities, as referred to in point 29 below.

20. On the same day, Raja asked TP Mazembe to send the original copy of the contract and suggested that each club appoints an expert from the “impartial and independent list of experts provided by CAS” in order to assess the validity of the contract.

21. By an email dated 9 August 2019, the club indicated to the new club that no evidence had been provided as regards the invalidity of the contract, and stated that it would not provide the original copy of the contract. However, the club mentioned the possibility of holding a meeting at its premises to discuss the matter. Moreover, the club also attached a document “Attestation de Confirmation” of the FECOFA confirming the validity of the contract and attesting that the contract was deposited at FECOFA.

22. On 15 August 2019, the player and Raja concluded an employment contract, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2022, pursuant to which the player was entitled to receive inter alia a monthly remuneration of USD 4,000, a hiring bonus of USD 50,000 and a sign-on fee of USD 148,000 for the 2019/2010 season, of USD 172,000 for the 2020/2021 season and of USD 172,000 for the 2021/2022 season.

23. On the same day, Raja publicly announced the signing of the player for a duration of 3 years. A request for the player’s ITC was made by the Moroccan FA on 25 August 2019, based on the fact that the contract had been terminated on 30 June 2019. On 2 September 2019, FECOFA rejected the request.

24. On 20 September 2019, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee issued his decision, granting the provisional registration of the player with Raja.

Position of TP Mazembe:

25. On 3 September 2019, TP Mazembe lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the player and Raja for breach of contract without just cause and inducement to breach, respectively, requesting that both parties should be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation to TP Mazembe.

26. In its claim, the first club affirmed that the contract had been formalised by a notary on 17 December 2016, i.e. the day following the signature. Moreover, the club held that an original version of the contract had been homologated by and submitted to FECOFA. A written confirmation of FECOFA dated 9 August 2019 confirming the foregoing was submitted as evidence.

27. The club further held that the contract contains the passport number of the player, which was also attached as an exhibit of the claim. The same passport number had allegedly been used by the player to obtain his visa in Algeria in July 2018.

28. The club also stated that the existence and validity of the contract was confirmed by a picture of the player signing the contract.

29. Second, the club held that it discovered that the player had made a request in January 2019, to change his date of birth to 11 October 1993. In this respect, the passport provided by the club mentions 11 May 1997 as his date of birth. The club accused the player and his agents of having prepared this fake since January 2019.

30. The club also contested that the player had played with the club in 2014. As evidence, it submitted a list of the Congolese club CS Don Bosco of 2016, which contains the player’s name and mentions the date of 10.11.1993 as the player’s date of birth.

31. Third, the club emphasised that Raja had not provided any evidence to prove the forgery of the contract.

32. Fourth, according to TP Mazembe, the public announcement and the ITC request by Raja clearly demonstrate that they signed an employment contract in August 2019 (valid for 3 years). Therefore, the player breached art. 18 par. 5 of the RSTP: “(i)f a professional enters into more than one contract covering the same period, the provisions set forth in Chapter IV shall apply”.

33. Moreover, TP Mazembe also held that by signing with Raja, the player terminated his contract with TP Mazembe without just cause, and must thus pay compensation pursuant to art. 17 of the RSTP.

34. Alternatively, TP Mazembe submitted that the absence of the player for more than 2 months, despite the club’s invitations for him to return, constitutes a breach of art. 4 of the contract. In this context, the contractual breach would also be established as per art. 14 par. 2 of the RSTP.

35. As to the compensation, the club held that the penalty clause of art. 5.2 in the amount of USD 2,000,000:

 Is reciprocal and respects the principal of balance and rights of the parties;

 Complies with CAS jurisprudence;

 Is not excessive as it is in line with the market value of the player.

36. On the contrary, the club considered that the compensation amount should be increased given the damage caused to the reputation of the club following the accusations of forgery. The club drew attention to a similar case before CAS, where the new club was allegedly sanctioned for making similar defamatory arguments.

37. Accordingly, the club requests USD 5,000,000 as compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the breach, to be paid jointly by the player and Raja. Such amount consists of USD 2,000,000 as per the compensation clause in the contract, USD 2,500,000 as compensation for the damage to the club’s reputation and USD 500,000 as compensation for the loss of the player in the course of the season.

38. Moreover, the club held that the player had been registered to play in the African Champions League 2019/2020. As this registration is definitive, the club will suffer (one player less) and thus requests a provisional amount of USD 500,000 as additional compensation for the caused damage.

39. As regards sporting sanctions pursuant to art. 17 par. 3 and 4, the club requested:

 Player: 4 months suspension for official matches

 New club: transfer ban for two registration periods

40. Finally, the club held that another player under contract with the club was currently being manipulated by the same agents than the player, to force a move away from the club.

Position of the player:

41. As already indicated, according to the player, the contract provided by TP Mazembe on 28 June 2019 (during the discussion with OP for a potential transfer) is not valid, as it is not contain his signature and his date of birth indicated in the contract is incorrect (11 May 1997 instead of 10 November 1993).

42. The player also held that the first time he was made aware of the contract, homologated by the FECOCA, was on 16 September 2019, during the proceedings for the issuance of the ITC in front of FIFA.

43. First, the player highlighted the bad faith of the club, as it did not respond to any of his or the Congolese players’ union requests for a copy of his contract, asserting that the club sidelined him as soon as he requested a copy of his contract. The player claimed to have done everything he could to avoid a conflict with the club.

44. Second, the player considered that paragraph 4 on page 1 of the contract, stating that the parties mutually agreed on the termination of the previous contract, together with the club’s email on 8 June 2019, clearly confirmed that the club acknowledged the existence of a previous contract, i.e. the contract signed in 2014 and valid until 2019 according to the player.

45. Third, the player emphasised the application of Congolese law in application of FIFA Circular 1171, in particular the principles of protection of employees and of reality of the contractual situation.

46. Fourth, in reply to the club’s argument that he played with the club CS Don Bosco in 2014, the player mentioned that the said club is a satellite club of TP Mazembe, competing in the same league, in breach of competition’s integrity. According to him, financial sanctions were taken by FIFA against both clubs in 2015.

47. Fifth, about the validity of the contract, the player put forward the following arguments to prove the forgery:

 The formalisation by a notary: the notary’s stamp does not refer to any name or amount to be paid, nor is there any notarial act confirming the formalisation, which is in breach of Congolese law.

 The homologation by the FECOFA: the contract presented by the club does not hold the homologation by the FECOFA. The first time the homologated version was presented to the player was during the proceedings for the issuance of a provisional ITC in September 2019. According to the player, the FECOFA only homologated the contract in 2019, meaning 3 years after its forged signature. To support this claim, the player held that the person who signed for the FECOFA only joined the FA in April 2019, which would have made it impossible for him to homologate the contract on behalf of the FECOFA in 2016.

 The picture posted by the club of the player signing a document: the player affirmed that this picture could have been taken at any time. In addition, the fact that the club mentioned that the picture was dated 16 November and the contract was allegedly only signed on 16 December, would only tend to confirm its irrelevance.

 The witness signing the contract: the witness of the player who allegedly signed the contract is the Secretary of the club and the president of supporters.

 The date of birth: the player claimed to be born on 10 November 1993. This is the DOB contained in TMS and Transfermarkt, as well as in the passport and birth certificate provided by the player. However, the DOB in the contract and the passport provided by the club indicated 11 May 1997.

 The salary contained in the contract: the salary contained in the contract was identical to the 2014 contract, thus there was no interest for him to re-sign under same conditions, given the interest of other clubs.

 The person signing on behalf of the club: the actual person signing the contract on behalf of the club was not the person indicated. Moreover, the contract does not contain a stamp of the club.

 It appears that there is no original copy of the contract.

48. The player also contested having signed a contract with the company Sport Equity or even having negotiated with such company. The player emphasised that this company belongs to the financial director of the club and is represented by the same Belgian lawyers as the club. As such, the player contested this conflict of interests.

49. In conclusion, the player asks FIFA to fully reject the claim of TP Mazembe and to establish that the employment contract expired on 30 May 2016.

50. Alternatively, with regard to the compensation, the player first contested the application of art. 17 of the Regulations given that he disputes having signed the contract. In any case, given that his salary as per the contract was USD 1,000/month, the player claimed that an amount of USD 2,000,000 is excessive and disproportionate. He equally rejected TM Mazembe’s request for the alleged damage to its reputation, in the amount of USD 2,500,000.

Position of Raja:

51. The new club confirmed and reiterated the position/arguments of the player.

52. As to the forgery of the contract, Raja added that the signature of the player on each page of the contract is “BMN” even though the player allegedly always signs “BM”, as it can be seen in his employment contract with the new club. This would be an additional argument to prove the forgery of the contract. The new club asked for a thorough analysis by a handwriting expert in accordance with art. 2 RSTP and 12 of the Procedural Rules.

53. Given that the player never signed the contract, Raja considered that it could not be accused of having induced the player to terminate a non-existing contract. In any case, Raja considered that it had done the necessary due diligence by asking TP Mazembe for a copy of the contract and suggesting the appointment of a panel of CAS experts.

54. Raja also claimed that the player was on loan at DC Bosco Club between “12 December 2016 and 29 November 2016 (sic)”. Raja further reiterated the statement of the player whereby TP Mazembe and DC Bosco Club were related and were investigated by FIFA in 2015, which allegedly led to financial sanctions against both clubs. As evidence, Raja provided a print-out from Wikipedia.

55. Raja also emphasised the bad reputation of TP Mazembe in terms of forgery and fabricating contracts.

56. Alternatively, should the DRC decide that the contract was valid, Raja argued that the compensation owed to TP Mazembe should be limited to USD 27,000, corresponding to residual value of the contract between September 2019 and 15 December 2021, i.e. 27 months at USD 1,000/month.

57. Finally, Raja asked that TP Mazembe bear all the costs of the proceedings.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. 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 submitted to FIFA on 3 September 2019 and decided on 21 February 2020. Taking into account 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), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

2. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2020), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute between a Congolese club, a Congolese player and a Moroccan club, “in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability, where there has been an ITC request and a claim from an interested party in relation to said ITC request, in particular regarding the issue of the ITC, sporting sanctions or compensation for breach of contract”.

3. Furthermore, 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 (2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 September 2019, the June 2019 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

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

5. In this respect, the Chamber first acknowledged that the player and TP Mazembe dispute the validity of the employment contract allegedly concluded between the parties on 16 December 2016 and consequently also the player’s contractual relationship with TP Mazembe at the moment he concluded a new employment contract with Raja on 15 August 2019.

6. The Chamber took note of the extensive argumentation of all parties and noted, in particular, that while TP Mazembe states to have concluded a valid employment contract with the player on 16 December 2016, valid until 15 December 2021, the player claims that the only valid contract he signed with the club was concluded in 2014 and valid for 5 years until 2019, a copy of which he no longer possesses. Thus, when he initiated negotiations with OP and subsequently decided to conclude an employment contract with Raja, he was a free agent not bound by any valid employment contract. In addition, the player claims that the contract of 16 December 2016 was forged by TP Mazembe and that he was only provided with a copy of it on 28 June 2019, after several requests and in the context of his possible transfer to OP.

7. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the main issues to be resolved in the present dispute were first whether the parties were indeed bound by a valid employment contract and second, if so, to determine whether such employment contract had been unilaterally terminated by the player with or without just cause on 15 August 2019.

8. The Chamber also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract had indeed been unilaterally terminated by the player without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences to be borne by him.

9. At this point, the Chamber deemed it necessary to recall the content of art. 12 par.3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

10. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber first focused on the issue of the validity of the employment contract dated 16 December 2016, contested by the player. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the player accuses TP Mazembe of having forged his signature on the aforementioned contract.

11. At this stage, the Chamber considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon, nor do they have sufficient power and authority to fully investigate and address, matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or documents. Furthermore, the Chamber indicated that it is not part of its usual practice to appoint handwriting experts and that such questions of allegedly falsified documents generally must fall into the jurisdiction and expertise of the competent national criminal authority.

12. The Chamber then recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, it focused its attention on the employment contract of 16 December 2016 as well as on other documents containing the player’s signature provided by the parties in the context of the present dispute. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that the original version of the aforementioned employment contract was in fact provided by TP Mazembe, following a request of FIFA.

13. On the basis of its appreciation of the aforementioned documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the player in the various documents provided in the present case, the DRC was obliged to conclude that, at least from a layman’s perspective, the signatures on such documents appear on a prima facie basis to be the same.

14. In view of all of the above, i.e., the burden of proof on the player to prove the alleged forgery of his signature, the inherent limitations of the Chamber’s investigative powers, and its review of the documentation at its disposal, the Chamber concluded that it was constrained to deem the present claim of TP Mazembe to be based on a valid employment contract concluded between said club and the player on 16 December 2016 and valid until 15 December 2021.

15. At this point, the DRC however deemed it important to point out that it is peculiar that the verification by the FA through the “Attestation de Confirmation”, confirming the validity of the contract and attesting that it had been deposited at FECOFA, was made only 3 years after the conclusion of the contract. However, considering that the club was able to provide FIFA with the original of the employment contract of 16 December 2016 and referring once again to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber considered that the player did not meet the burden of proving that his signature on the original document was indeed falsified.

16. Consequently, on 15 August 2019, when the player concluded a new employment contract with Raja, he still had a valid contract with TP Mazembe and – as no other justification was brought up by the player other than the invalidity of the contract – he entered into more than one employment contract covering the same period.

17. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber established that the player breached his contract with TP Mazembe without just cause on 15 August 2019 by concluding a new employment contract with Raja on that date. Thus, as per art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations, the provisions set forth in Chapter IV of the Regulations shall apply and the player is to be held liable to bear the financial and sporting consequences of having signed two valid employment contracts for the same period of time.

18. , The Chamber then focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that TP Mazembe is entitled to receive from the player an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract.

19. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to TP Mazembe by the player. 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, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

20. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to determine whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had agreed upon an amount of compensation payable in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber focused its attention on clause 5.2 of the contract, which stipulates that “in accordance with art. 17 of the RSTP, the amount of USD 2,000,000 is due as compensation in case of breach or unilateral termination of the contract”.

21. In addition, the Chamber recalled that while TP Mazembe based its claim for compensation primarily on this clause, the Respondents fully rejected the applicability of said penalty clause as disproportionate.

22. In this context, the Chamber went on to analyse the content of clause 5.2 of the contact. In particular, the Chamber noted that, even though the clause appears to be reciprocal and to apply in case of unjust premature termination by either the player or TP Mazembe, the amount therein established – USD 2,000,000 – is patently disproportionate in comparison to the amount TP Mazembe had agreed to pay the player for his monthly services, i.e. USD 1,000.

23. As a result, the Chamber concluded that such an exorbitant amount provided as compensation for unjust breach is excessive and is not acceptable. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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 article provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

24. The Chamber then turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the DRC to be essential. The Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation.

25. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract with TP Mazembe from its date of termination without just cause by the player, i.e. 15 August 2019, until its natural expiry date, i.e. 15 December 2021 and concluded that the player would have received in total USD 28,000 as salaries.

26. The Chamber stipulated that for the relevant period of time, i.e. from 15 August 2019 to 15 December 2021, the player was entitled to receive from Raja the total remuneration of USD 565,993, based on a monthly allocation of the several amounts due to him as per the new contract, amounting to USD 20,214.

27. In line with its well established jurisprudence, the Chamber concluded that the average of the residual value of the contract with TP Mazembe and the remuneration of the player with Raja between 15 August 2019 and 15 December 2021 is thus USD 296,996.50. In view of the above, the player must pay compensation to TP Mazembe in the amount of USD 296,996.50, plus 5% interest as from the date of the claim.

28. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of article 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e. Raja, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that according to article 17 par. 4 sent. 2 of the Regulations, it shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach.

29. 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(ies) to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

30. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out 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 and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods. Against players, such consequence shall consist of a restriction on playing in official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction, including possible sporting sanctions, shall be of six months on playing in official matches.

31. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that, in the event that the player and Raja do not pay the amount due to TP Mazembe within 45 days as from the moment in which TP Mazembe, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the player and to Raja, a) the player shall be restricted from playing in official matches up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of six months and b) Raja 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 (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

32. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned bans will be lifted immediately and prior to their complete serving upon payment of the due amount, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

33. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by TP Mazembe is rejected.

*****

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Tout Puissant Mazembe, is partially accepted.

2. The First Respondent, Mr Ben Malanga, has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 296,996.50, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 September 2019 until the date of effective payment.

3. The Second Respondent, Raja Casablanca, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the First Respondent and the Second Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail addresses as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the First Respondent and the Second Respondent must pay the amount mentioned under point 2. above.

6. The First Respondent and the Second Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

7. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 2. above is not paid by the First Respondent and/or the Second Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the First Respondent and the Second Respondent:

7.1 The First Respondent shall be restricted from playing in official matches up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of six months (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

7.2 The Second 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 (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

8. The restriction and ban mentioned in point 7. above will be lifted immediately and prior to complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

9. In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the restriction from playing of six months of the First Respondent or the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods of the Second Respondent, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 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 appeal procedure:

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 (cf. point 4 of the directives).

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