F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 16 July 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed via videoconference, on 16 July 2020,
regarding a contractual dispute concerning the player Oday ABRAHIM DABBAGH
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairman
Michelle Colucci (Italy), member
Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member
CLAIMANT:
ODAY ABRAHIM DABBAGH, Palestine
Represented by Mr Emad Hanayneh
RESPONDENT:
AL SALMIYA CLUB, Kuwait
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Contractual basis
1. On 23 July 2019, the Palestinian player, Oday Abrahim Dabbagh (hereinafter: the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent or the player) and the Kuwaiti club, Al Salmiya Club (hereinafter: the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant or the club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract), valid as from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2020. The parties agreed upon, inter alia, a
sign-on fee of USD 60,000 and a monthly salary of USD 14,000, payable in ten monthly
instalments.
2. Art. 11 foresaw that the player “undertakes to make all efforts at all matches played in the name
of the club and to participate in the training at the place and time specified by [the club]”.
3. According to art. 12 of the contract, the player “shall participate in official, amicable local and
international matches of the club inside and outside Kuwait notified by the club.”
4. Art. 13 of the contract stipulated that the player “undertakes not to be committed to any work
inside Kuwait, and he will not participate in any other sports activities without the written
permission from the club, and the player shall preserve his fitness and health and not expose it
to danger.”
5. According to art. 21 of the contract, “in the event where the player is found guilty of violating
the rules and laws of the State of Kuwait or articles of this contract, the club may terminate the
contract, without prejudice to the right of the first party to claim compensation for the salaries,
advance payment of the contract until the date of cancellation of the contract.”
6. The player informed the FIFA administration that he signed a contract with the Kuwaiti club
Qadsia SC signed a new contract with Qadsia SC (Kuwait) on 4 December 2019, according to
which he was set to earn USD 50,000 up until June 2020.
Requests of the parties
7. On 7 December 2019, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA, requesting the following:
- USD 56,000 as the salaries of August, September, October 2019 and November 2019;
- USD 84,000 as the residual value of the contract;
- “to pay for the player legal interests from the due date of each payment”;
- Sanctions on the Respondent in line with art. 12bis of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
8. On 17 December 2019, the club lodged a counter-claim, requesting the reimbursement of
expenses incurred with him and the payment of compensation for breach of contract, as follows::
- “an advance payment of USD 60,000”;
- KWD 5,400 as “the value of renting the apartment (…) for a period of one year from (…)
01/07/2019 until the end of the contract 30/06/2020”;
- KWD 2,4000 as “The value of the car rental for a period of one year from (…) 01/07/2019 until
the end of the contract 30/06/2020”;
- Compensation for breach of contract by the player in line with art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players;
- Compensation for “material and moral damages suffered because of the player’s
announcement of joining another club in the state of Kuwait (…) which has damaged our
club’s reputation among the club fans and the sports street.”
Position of the parties
Claim of the player
9. The player maintained that on 16 November 2019, he sent a letter to the club, asking for the
payment of his monthly salaries of August 2019, September 2019 and October 2019, i.e. USD
42,000, granting the club 15 days to remedy the default.
10. Since no payment was made, the player terminated the contract on 4 December 2019. According
to the player, he terminated the contract with just cause, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players, and requested outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract in this respect.
Answer of the club:
11. The club confirmed having received an email for the player’s representative, without any apparent
valid reason, on 16 November 2019, by means of which he requested on behalf of the player the
payment of USD 42,000 to his own bank account and without any power of attorney attached
to his request. The club stated that it tried to verify the identity and legitimacy of said legal
representative with the player, but the player had “evaded” at that time.
12. What is more, the club contacted the player’s allegedly known legal representative, Mr. Hussain
Abu Sarhan, and requested the return of the player to Kuwait by no later than 30 November
2019 in order to solve the issue of the non-payment of his dues. In this respect, the club
underlined that the issue arose from the refusal of the player to provide his bank details.
13. The club explained that it came to its knowledge that the player had returned to Kuwait after his
international duties on 28 November 2019, but did not return to work. The club pointed that the
player had returned to Kuwait to sign with a new club, Qadsia SC, which coincided with the
expiry date for payment sent in the default notice of the alleged player’s representative on 16
November 2019.
14. The club insisted that the player terminated his contract on the basis of an invalid default notice
sent by an individual that did not provide a power of attorney, and that said individual based the player’s unilateral termination on art. 14bis of the Regulations although the non-payment only
occurred because said individual requested the payment to be paid on his bank account without
any prior authorisation from the player.
15. Then, the club pointed out that the player breached the terms of the contract on several
occasions, by being repeatedly absent and missing matches. The club did not provide any
documentation is support.
Claim of the club
16. The club maintained that after the payment of the sign-on fee, the player started his activities in
the club, participating in four matches. In his last match on 28 September 2019, the player
suffered an injury and subsequently “insisted to leave Kuwait and receive treatment in his
country”, which allegedly happened on 29 September 2019 “without abiding the instructions of
the team management.” According to the club, the player stayed abroad, “stopping the practice
of his professional activities under the pretext of injury”. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant did
not provide any documentation in support.
17. In the meantime, on 22 September 2019, the club indicated that the player’s member association
asked the club to release the Player “for the World Cup and the Asian Club during the period 11-
19/11/2019”.
18. On 14 and 19 November 2019, the club provided evidence according to which the player was in
the match squad for the World Cup qualifiers.
19. According to the club, the player asked for the payment of his monthly salary, explicitly requesting
“not to transfer the amount on the bank account because he did not bear the high transfer fees”
and to “hand over the monthly salary of one of his friends to hand it to him by hand”. The club
indicated having rejected such procedure. The club did not provide any evidence of the alleged
request and subsequent refusal.
20. The club acknowledged receipt of the player’s default letter of 16 November 2019 (cf. I.5 above),
yet the club rejected to send the salaries to the lawyers account as requested. Allegedly, it was
impossible for the club to contact the player. Moreover, the club alleged that the player had
returned to Kuwait on 28 November 2019, yet he did not attend the training nor did he respond
the phone calls from the club. The Respondent / Counter-claimant did not provide any evidence
in support.
21. On 3 December 2019, the club allegedly contacted the player’s agent in order to request the
Player’s presence, however to no avail.
22. On 4 December 2019, the player allegedly returned the keys of the club’s apartment and car.
Moreover, he allegedly announced a new contract with Kuwaiti club on his social media account.
23. According to the club, the player violated several articles of the contact, i.e. art. 11, 12, 13 and
21, as well as art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
Answer of the player
24. The player stated that it is undisputed that the club received the notice, that it had not paid the
player his outstanding remuneration, and that the club repeatedly asked the player to come in
person to collect his dues in an attempt to avoid the payment despite the player’s request to pay
said amounts to his attorney.
25. The player underlined that he had made a request to the club’s team manager about his salaries
and his agent (Mr. Hussein Abusarhan) sent an email on 11 November 2019 requesting their
payment in an email that was acknowledged by the club. The player also stated that the club
refused to make the requested payment to him in person.
26. The player declared that the club did not make any contact with his legal representative who sent
the notice in bad faith. In fact, the player highlighted that the club sent to said legal representative
a correspondence titled “Advocate: Emad Hanayneh the representative of the Player”, de facto
acknowledging that he was the rightful attorney of the player.
27. In view of the above, the player insisted that the club evaded its contractual obligations and as a
consequence he had a just cause to terminate his contract on 4 December 2019.
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 29 November 2019 and submitted for decision
on 2 July 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2020 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 members of 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. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2020), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Palestinian player and a
Kuwaiti club.
3. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2020 edition), and considering that the claim was lodged on 7 December 2019 and the counter-claim on 17 December 2019, the
October 2019 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the 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. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation
submitted by the parties. 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. Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the
present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind 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.
6. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 23 July 2019, the player and the
club had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June
2020, pursuant to which the club undertook to pay to the player the remuneration, as established
in point I.1 above.
7. Furthermore, the members of the DRC took note of the fact that on 16 November 2019, the
player sent a letter to the club, asking for the payment of his monthly salaries of August 2019,
September 2019 and October 2019, i.e. USD 42,000, granting the club 15 days to remedy the
default.
8. Moreover, the DRC took note that, according to the player, he had just cause to unilaterally
terminate the employment contract on 4 December 2019, since no payment had been made by
the club in this respect.
9. Subsequently, the members of the DRC took note that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, for
its part, did not contest that it had an outstanding debt towards the Claimant, but rather
indicated that it did not wish to process any payment to the player’s alleged representative in
view of an apparent issue with said representative’s power of attorney.
10. What is more, the Chamber observed that the Respondent had indicated that the Claimant had
been repeatedly absent from training and matches after having been on international duty, i.e.
after 19 November 2019.
11. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the club considered that in view of such absences, the
player had breached the contract and had terminated it without just cause on 4 December 2019.
12. In light of the foregoing, the DRC considered that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering
the parties’ position, was to determine as to whether the player had just cause to terminate the
employment contract and to determine the consequences thereof.
13. In this context, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to clarify that, in accordance with art. 12 par.
3 of the Procedural Rules, in the present case, the Respondent bore the burden of proving either
the payment of the player’s salaries or that it had a valid reason for not having done so.
14. In this respect, the Chamber noted that based on the evidence on file, it was uncontested that
the club failed to pay the player’s salaries of August, September, October and November 2019.
15. What is more, the DRC remarked that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that the
player had been absent since his last international match played for his country on 19 November
2019.
16. However, the Chamber emphasised that the club did not provide any substantial proof of this
alleged absence, including but not limited to a request to resume his duties and/or disciplinary
proceedings for being absent without authorisation. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasised that
the club did not provide any proof that it had requested the player’s return at all before the date
of termination.
17. What is more, the DRC wished to emphasise that in any case, an alleged absence of the player
from 20 November to 4 December 2019 (i.e. the date of termination) would not justify the nonpayment
of the player’s salaries for August, September and October 2019 by the club.
18. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not bring
any valid reason to justify the delay in paying the player’s remuneration.
19. In continuation, the Chamber highlighted that on the basis of the parties’ submissions, it could
be noted that the club did not contest that, by the time the player terminated the contract, at
four monthly salaries were outstanding. Moreover the members of the DRC observed that it also
remained undisputed that the player provided the club with 15 days to remedy its default.
20. What is more, taking into account the consideration under point. II./3. above, the DRC referred
to art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, which, inter alia, stipulates that, in the case of a club
unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will
be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor
club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to
fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
21. Consequently, on account of the above and considering that, when the player terminated the
contract, four monthly salaries were due despite having the player provided the club with 15 days
to remedy the default, the DRC concluded that, on 4 December 2019, the player had just cause
to unilaterally terminate the employment contract.
22. As a result, the Chamber decided that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contract with just cause by the player, and consequently, the Chamber rejected the
counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
23. Having established that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment
contract, the DRC focused his attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into
consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC established that the player is entitled to
receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract, in
addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
24. Along those lines, the DRC firstly referred to the player’s request regarding the outstanding
remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the employment contract. In this
respect, the DRC concurred that the club must fulfil its obligations as per the employment
contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
25. Consequently, and bearing in mind that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated his
employment contract on 13 November 2019, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay
to the player outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 56,000, corresponding to the
salaries of August, September, October and November 2019.
26. In addition, taking into consideration the specific request of the player on the point, the Chamber
decided to award the latter interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2019 until the date of effective payment on the
amount of USD 14,000;
- 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2019 until the date of effective payment on the amount
of USD 14,000;
- 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2019 until the date of effective payment on the
amount of USD 14,000;
- 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2019 until the date of effective payment on the
amount of USD 14,000.
27. Moreover, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided
that the player is entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract from the club.
28. In continuation, the DRC focused his attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent by the Respondent / Counter-
Claimant in the case at stake. In doing so, the DRC 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.
29. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether
the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had
beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the employment contract does not
contain any such clause.
30. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the parameters set out in
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 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
as from its termination and concluded that the player would have been entitled to receive USD
84,000 as remuneration had the employment contract been executed until its regular expiry date,
i.e. 30 June 2020. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 84,000 serves
as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the case at hand.
31. In continuation, the Chamber assessed 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. In this respect, the DRC deemed it necessary to refer to the
first sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player
signed a new contract by the time of the decision, the value of the new contract for the period
corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated contract shall be deducted
from the residual value of the contract that was terminated early (the ”Mitigated
Compensation”).
32. In respect of the above, the Chamber recalled that, on 4 December 2019, the player signed an
employment contract with the Kuwaiti club Qadsia SC valid as from the date of signature and
according to which he would be set to earn USD 50,000 up until 30 June 2020. On account of
the above, such amount shall be deducted, leading to a mitigated compensation in the amount
of USD 34,000.
33. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the second sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of
the Regulations, according to which, in addition to the mitigated compensation, the player shall
be entitled to an additional compensation of three monthly salaries, subject to the early
termination of the contract being due to overdue payables, whereby the overall compensation
may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.
34. With the above in mind, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
additional compensation in the amount of USD 42,000, in accordance with the above-mentioned
provision.
35. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that
the club must pay the amount of USD 76,000 as compensation for breach of contract to the
player.
36. In addition, taking into consideration the specific request of the player on the point, the Chamber
decided to award the latter interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from the date of claim, i.e. 7
December 2019.
37. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant / Counter-
Respondent.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within
45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, following the
notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant, 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 Respondent / Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
41. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban 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/Counter-Respondent, Oday Abrahim Dabbagh, is partially accepted.
2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Al Salmiya Club, is rejected.
3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the following
amounts:
- USD 14,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2019
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 14,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2019 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 14,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2019
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 14,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2019
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 76,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 7 December 2019 until the date of effective payment.
4. Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to immediately and directly inform the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent/Counter-
Claimant must pay the due amounts.
6. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in
accordance with this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the
official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7. In the event that the amounts due, plus interest as established above are not paid by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant/Counter-
Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the following
consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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.
8. The decision is pronounced free of costs (cf. art. 18 par. 2 of the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
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