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 21 October 2020
Decision of the
DRC Judge
passed on 21 October 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Lionel Christopher
Zouma
BY:
Jon Newman (USA), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
LIONEL CHRISTOPHER ZOUMA, France
Represented by Mr. Bernardo Palmeiro
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
DHOFAR CLUB, Oman
Represented by Mr. Nasr Eldin Azzam
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 23 June 2019, the French player, Mr Lionel Christopher Zouma (hereinafter: the player
or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract) with the Omani club, Dhofar Club (hereinafter: Dhofar or the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant) valid as from 1 August 2019 until 31 May 2020.
2. According to art. 2 of the contract, the club undertook, inter alia, to pay the player the total
amount of USD 120,000, as follows:
USD 20,000 as sign on fee;
USD 20,000 “with the beginning of the second round of the league”;
USD 20,000 “at the end of the sports season 2019/2020, provided that the
participation rate of not less than 70% of the total number of league and cup matches
and entering (18) Matches”;
Ten monthly instalments of USD 6,000.
3. On 24 March 2020, the player informed the club in writing that he had only received the
sign on fee, as well as two monthly salaries corresponding to the months of August and
September 2019. As such, the player requested that the club pay him, within 15 days, “the
amount of USD 20,000 due to be paid at the beginning of the second round of the league
(1st January 2020) and the monthly salaries of October, November, December, January and
February, in the amount of USD 6,000 each”.
4. On 7 April 2020, the club replied, holding that “(d)ue to the catastrophic circumstances
caused by the pandemic of CO-VID 19 all over the world since the beginning of 2020, the
Club, like merely all the other international clubs, has been gravely and seriously affected
from a financial point of view; any funds usually provided by the Asian Football
Confederation (AFC), the Oman Football Association (OFA), sponsors or even sales of tickets,
which are the main incomes for the funding of the first team football squad, were totally
suspended. Consequently, it has been almost unbearable for the Club to cover most of its
financial obligations, not only against the Player, but any other debtors. Although all what
is mentioned above, the Club is making sure that [the player is] able to cover [his] livings
costs in Oman during this exceptional period. In addition, [the club] assure that [the club]
will be able to fulfil any overdue and remaining amounts due to the Player once this
pandemic situation is over”.
5. By means of a correspondence dated 9 April 2020, the player referred to the FIFA guidelines
issued on 7 April 2020 and argued that “all the amounts currently outstanding were all due
to be paid before the outbreak of the virus” and that “the Club cannot shield itself in the
current epidemic to avoid the immediate payment of all the amounts currently outstanding”.
Finally, the player maintained that to that day, USD 6,000 corresponding to the monthly
salary of March 2020 had also become outstanding and thus requested the club to pay him
the total amount of USD 56,000 within 5 days.
6. On 13 April 2020, the club informed the player that it “has never denied in its letter that the
payment of those amounts to the Player due to the current situation; we only asked the
Player to consider this hard situation and understand that it is never a “personal issue”.” In
continuation, the club stated that “any amounts due to the Player starting from 15 March
2020 are suspended after the suspension of the Oman Professional League – as mentioned
above – but all consequences of such decision will be discussed by the Club’s board of
directors once the Club starts working again after discussing it with the player.” Finally, the
club indicated that “(w)e promise to contact [the player] once this situation is over to let [the
player] know when [the player] should return to the Club and [the club] will make sure at
that time that all [the player’s] overdue amounts are immediately available”.
7. On 14 April 2020, the club proposed the following payment schedule to the player:
“The payment of the total amount requested by the Player which is equal to USD 50.000 in
addition to USD 3.000 for 15 working days in March 2020 since the Oman Professional
League has been suspended by formal decision of the Omani Government starting from 15
March 2020 (already enclosed as Annex in our letter). Therefore, the total amount
attributable to the Player is equal to USD 53,000, will be paid into 4 separate instalments:
*1st instalment equal to USD 13,250 to be paid to the Player on 10 May 2020
*2nd instalment equal to USD 13,250 to be paid to the Player on 10 July 2020
*3rd instalment equal to USD 13,250 to be paid to the Player on 10 September 2020
*4th instalment equal to USD 13,250 to be paid to the Player on 10 November 2020”.
8. On 16 April 2020, the player made a counter proposal to the club, as follows:
USD 13.250 “on the date of the signature of the settlement agreement (not after
20 April 2020)”;
USD 13.250 on 10 June 2020;
USD 13.250 on 10 August 2020;
USD 13.250 on 10 September 2020.
9. On 18 April 2020, the club came back towards the player, proposing the following payment
schedule:
USD 13.250 on 1 May 2020;
USD 13.250 on 1 July 2020;
USD 13.250 on 1 September 2020;
USD 13.250 on 15 October 2020.
10. On 22 April 2020, the player informed the club via email that he accepted the club’s proposal
dated 18 April 2020.
11. On 26 April 2020, the club informed the player that “(i)t is impossible to pay the first
instalment on 01 May 2020, because this time limit is very narrow along with the fact that the club’s headquarters are already closed – as [the club] mentioned earlier in [the club’s]
second response – so it will really be difficult to take any action soon. Likewise, entering the
holy month of Ramadan, fasting the month, and the consequent cessation of business
almost entirely, as [the club] would have liked to have [the player’s] response quickly to [the
club]. There has been no delay in the response, which is what [the club] had to amend the
payment in the first instalment.” As such, the club made the following proposal to the
player:
USD 13.250 on 1 June 2020;
USD 13.250 on 1 July 2020;
USD 13.250 on 1 September 2020;
USD 13.250 on 15 October 2020.
12. On 29 April 2020, the player informed the club that he did not accept the club’s proposal
of 26 April 2020, and requested to be paid USD 13,250 by 10 May 2020 “in with the date
which was initially proposed”.
13. On 6 May 2020, the club informed the player that “the current situation calls for […]
flexibility”, asking the player for “a 10 day extension” for the first payment “only as to make
sure [the club] make the payment before end of month with no sanctions”.
14. On 10 May 2020, the player terminated the contract in writing, informing the club that he
“is not in a position to accept [the club’s] offer and considers that no agreement has been
reached between the parties to pay part the outstanding amounts”. The player further
maintained that he “has been without receiving any amount since last October and sees that
the Club continuously delaying the possibility of reaching an agreement, making the Player’s
situation unsustainable”. Finally, the player requested the club to “execute the payment of
all amounts due without any further delay plus the residual value of [the player’s] contract
as from this date until 31 May 2020, totaling USD 88,000”.
15. On 23 May 2020, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA.
16. In his claim, the player explained that he was “interested in reaching an agreement” with
the club, as it could be demonstrated by his correspondence dated 22 April 2020, by means
of which he accepted the club’s proposal of 18 April 2020.
17. The player further stated that the club’s amended proposal of 26 April 2020 came as a
surprise to him, given that the first instalment would be paid on 1 June 2020, instead of
10 May 2020, which was the initial date proposed by the club. In this context, the player
stated that, by means of his correspondence dated 29 April 2020, he accepted to reschedule
the payment date of the first instalment from 1 May 2020 to 10 May 2020.
18. Consequently, on 10 May 2020, “and taking into account the Club’s continuously intention
to delay the conclusion of the settlement agreement, in complete disrespect of the situation
(the Player was not paid since October 2019)”, the player decided to terminate the contract.
19. In continuation, the player argued that on the date of termination, i.e. 10 May 2020, seven
monthly instalments of USD 6,000 each were due to him, plus “10 days of the salary of May
2020 in the amount of USD 1,935.48”, as well as USD 20,000 corresponding to the payment
“due at the beginning of the second round of the league”.
20. In addition, the player maintained that he was entitled to the residual value of the contract,
corresponding to “21 days of the salary of May 2020 in the amount of USD 4,064.52”, as
well as “the amount to be paid at the end of the season in the amount of USD 20,000.00”.
21. In light of the above, the player requested the total amount of USD 106,000, plus 5%
interest, for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
USD 63,935.48 as outstanding remuneration;
USD 24,064.52 as compensation, corresponding to the residual value of the contract;
USD 18,000 as additional compensation, in accordance with art. 17 RSTP.
22. Finally, the player requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the club.
23. In its reply to the claim, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player, requesting
compensation in the amount of USD 100,000, corresponding to the “loss of earnings” and
an amount for “specificity of sport: to be fixed by the Chamber”.
24. What is more, the club acknowledged that it paid the player the sign on fee in the amount
of USD 20,000 and the monthly salaries for August and September but that no further
payments had been made.
25. In this regard, the club explained that in February 2020, whilst it was preparing its match
against Al-Qadisyah Club from Kuwait in the AFC Tournament, said match was cancelled,
which “caused a big loss to the Club’s fund”. Moreover, the club deemed that the Kuwaiti
Football Association “undertook to compensate all parties affected by this cancellation
including the Club”.
26. In addition, the club claimed that on 15 March 2020, all sports activities and competitions
were suspended in Oman due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
27. The club also explained that it received “a notification sent collectively from 12 optics stores
signed and stamped by all of them notifying the club with their loss and proposing the
reduction of the rental value”.
28. Furthermore, the club argued that on 12 April 2020, the Omani Football Association issued
a decision “by which it ruled with suspension of all salaries of employees since 14 March
2020 until the resumption of trainings”.
29. According to the club, once it received the player’s notice, it “contacted the KFA and AFC
(almost daily) asking them to accelerate the process of refunding the Club its paid expensed
arising out of the cancelled match in Kuwait that exceeded USD 46,000 […] which were
sufficient to facilitate the amicable settlement with the Player, but all those attempts did not
quit work out and the Club did not feel a serious attempt from the KFA or the AFC to refund
the Club within a few days”.
30. Having said this, the club explained that it informed the player that “all his payments starting
from 14 March 2020 have been suspended as a result of the current extraordinary
circumstances”. The club emphasised that it tried everything to settle the matter amicably
but that it was not possible due to the player’s “non-cooperation” and “bad faith”.
31. In this regard, the club confirmed that the parties initially agreed on a settlement plan on
22 April 2020, however, that the club requested “a default payment period of 14 days to
each original payment date which totally accords to the unexpected changes of
circumstance in the whole world”.
32. Finally, the club stressed that it “tried to show flexibility by suggesting the fixation of a 5-
day grace period instead of 14 days”.
33. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player reiterated his previous position and rejected the
club’s counterclaim. In particular, the player highlighted that the club “failed to address the
reason why it stopped paying the Player’s salaries in September and only addressed alleged
reasons that occurred on February and March and that justified the entire situation that lead
to the Player’s termination of the employment contract with just cause”.
34. In addition, the player highlighted that due to the club’s non-compliance with its contractual
obligations, he was entitled to terminate the contract already in March, but that he “opted
to do so [terminate the contract on 10 May 2020] after having exhausted all possible means
of having the situation solved and his due amounts duly paid, which unfortunately did not
happen”.
35. In this regard, the player deemed that “having been without receiving any due payment –
salaries and fee for the beginning of the second round of the league – since October 2019-
, and after having given the club the possibility to reach an agreement over the outstanding
salaries, on 10 May 2020 the Player had no other possibility but to terminate his Employment
contract”. This being said, the player argued that “just the simple fact of having accepted
to negotiate a settlement agreement shows the Player’s good faith throughout all this
process”.
36. Finally, the player stressed that “the pandemic is not accepted as a legal and valid justification
not to have executed payments that were outstanding before (not to say long before) its
outburst.”
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter also referred to as the judge
or DRC judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this
respect, the judge took note that the present matter was first submitted to FIFA on 23 May
2020. Consequently, the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules)
is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the 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
(October 2020 edition), he is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns
an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a French player
and an Omani club.
3. Furthermore, the judge analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as
to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the judge confirmed that, in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (October 2020 edition) and considering that the
present matter was submitted to FIFA on 20 May 2020, the March 2020 edition of said
Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established,
the judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, he started to acknowledge
the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the judge
emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments
and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter
at hand.
5. In this respect, the judge acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the player
and the club had signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 August 2019 until 31 May
2020, according to which the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, a total amount of
USD 120,000, broken down as detailed in point I. 2. supra.
6. In continuation, the judge noted that the player unilaterally terminated the employment
contract with the club on 10 May 2020, alleging that he “has been without receiving any
amount since last October and sees that the Club continuously delaying the possibility of
reaching an agreement, making the Player’s situation unsustainable”.
7. Summarising the parties’ respective positions in this dispute, the judge noted that the player,
on the one hand, claimed that the club had failed to pay him 7 monthly salaries as well as
USD 20,000 corresponding to the payment “due at the beginning of the second round of
the league”, that he had shown good faith by accepting to reach a settlement agreement,
but that the club was still in breach of the contract, raising invalid reasons to justify the
absence of payments.
8. Equally, the judge took note of the reply and counterclaim of the club, which, on the other
hand, affirmed that the delay in paying the player’s salaries was due to the cancellation of
a match of the AFC Tournament and the suspension of all sports activities and competitions
in Oman as from 15 March 2020, due to COVID-19. In continuation, the judge observed
that the club also considered to have tried to settle the matter amicably with the player,
however to no avail.
9. In this context, the judge observed that the player deemed that he had terminated the
contract with just cause, and that the club had lodged a counter-claim against the player,
requesting compensation in the amount of USD 100,000, corresponding to the “loss of
earnings” and an amount for “specificity of sport: to be fixed by the Chamber”.
10. In view of the foregoing, the judge established that the main issue to be analysed in the
present case is whether the player in fact had a just cause to unilaterally and prematurely
terminate the contract with the club on 10 May 2020 or not. Subsequently, the judge shall
establish the financial and/or sporting consequences to be borne by the party found to be
in breach of contract.
11. In this respect, the judge was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is
of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there
are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken, such measures must be taken
before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
12. Furthermore, the judge deemed it appropriate to recall the basic principle of burden of
proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party
claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.
13. In this context, the judge noted that the player held that the club had failed to pay him
7 monthly salaries as well as USD 20,000 corresponding to the payment “due at the
beginning of the second round of the league”.
14. In this regard, the judge wished to recall that the player had put the club in default to pay
the outstanding amounts on 24 March 2020 and on 9 April 2020, granting the club 15 days
and 5 days, respectively.
15. Bearing in mind the above, the judge further observed that the player and the club held
negotiations, pertaining to a potential settlement agreement. In this respect, the judge
however pointed out that the parties failed to reach an agreement and that the player
unilaterally terminated the contract on 10 May 2020.
16. On the other hand, the judge thoroughly analysed the position of the club, which confirmed
having paid the player the sign on fee in the amount of USD 20,000, the monthly salaries
for August and September 2019 and that no further payments had been made, thereby
acknowledging having failed to pay the player’s salaries for the following months.
17. With the aforementioned in mind, the judge took note of the club’s position, according to
which the delay in paying the player’s salaries was due to the cancellation of a match of the
AFC Tournament and the suspension of all sports activities and competitions in Oman as
from 15 March 2020, due to COVID-19.
18. Having said that, the judge wished to refer to the fact that, in light of the worldwide COVID-
19 outbreak, FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at
providing appropriate guidance and recommendations to member associations and their
stakeholders, to both mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and
ensure that any response is harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020,
FIFA has issued an additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides
clarification about the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory
consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
19. Following these general observations, the judge deemed it important to outline that it
remained uncontested that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not fulfilled its financial
obligations set forth in the employment contract signed between the parties and that on
the date of termination, i.e. 10 May 2020, at least seven monthly salaries as well as other
amounts were outstanding, part of these amounts falling due before the outbreak of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
20. Against such background, the judge considered that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
had not provided any valid justification with regard to the non-payment of the player’s
salaries and the amount of USD 20,000 “due at the beginning of the second round of the
league”.
21. Consequently, the judge was of the opinion that the objective circumstances at the time
provided the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with just cause to terminate the employment
contract.
22. In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge came to the conclusion
that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had terminated the contract on 10 May 2020, with
just cause.
23. As an immediate consequence of such, the judge concluded at this point that the
counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant against the Claimant / Counter-
Respondent is rejected.
24. Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contract, the judge focused his attention on the
consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the judge decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive
from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant an amount of money as compensation for breach
of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment
contract.
25. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the player’s claim, in which he requested the amount
of USD 63,935.48 as outstanding remuneration plus interest as well as compensation for
breach of contract in the amount of USD 24,064.52 net, plus 5% interest p.a. and
USD 18,000 as additional compensation pursuant to art. 17 of the Regulations, plus interest.
26. Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 10 May 2020, and
in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the judge decided that
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the player the amount of USD 62,000,
corresponding to the monthly salaries of October 2020 until April 2020, i.e. USD 42,000,
plus USD 20,000 due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “at the beginning of the second
round of the league”.
27. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request and the
constant practice of the DRC judge in this regard, the judge decided to award the player
5% interest p.a. on the above-mentioned amount, as follows:
On USD 6,000 as from 1 November 2019 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 6,000 as from 1 December 2019 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 6,000 as from 1 January 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 6,000 as from 1 February 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 6,000 as from 1 March 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 6,000 as from 1 April 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 6,000 as from 1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 20,000 as from 1 February 2020 until the date of effective payment.
28. In continuation, the judge focused his attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the judge 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 judge held that he 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 judge established that the contract did
not contain such a provision.
30. As a consequence, the judge determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The judge recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
31. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the DRC judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
until 31 May 2020. Consequently, the judge concluded that the total amount of
USD 26,000, corresponding to USD 6,000 (monthly salary of May 2020) plus USD 20,000
due by the club “at the end of the sports season 2019/2020, provided that the participation
rate of not less than 70% of the total number of league and cup matches and entering (18)
Matches”, serve as basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract.
32. In continuation, the judge 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
judge, 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.
33. In this context, the judge observed that the player remained unemployed to this day and
was thus not able to mitigate his damages.
34. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must
pay the total amount of USD 26,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, which was
considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case
at hand.
35. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request and the constant practice of the
DRC judge in this regard, the judge decided to award the player interest on the amount of USD 26,000 as from the date of the claim, i.e. 23 May 2020, until the date of effective
payment.
36. Subsequently, the DRC judge analysed the request of the player corresponding to additional
compensation in the amount of USD 18,000. In this regard, the judge deemed it appropriate
to point out that additional compensation in the sense of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii. of the
Regulations is subject to the player having mitigated his damages and the early termination
of a contract being due to overdue payables. Taking into account that the player was not
able to mitigate his damages in the case at hand, the DRC judge decided to reject the player’s
request for additional compensation.
37. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any
further request filed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. Equally and
considering that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was, overall, found to be in breach of
the contract, the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
38. Furthermore, the DRC judge 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 judge pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amount 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 judge decided that, in the event that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant does not pay the amount 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 DRC judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and
prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amount, 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, Lionel Christopher Zouma, is partially
accepted.
2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Dhofar Club, is rejected.
3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the
following amounts:
- USD 62,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
o On USD 6,000 as from 1 November 2019 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 6,000 as from 1 December 2019 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 6,000 as from 1 January 2020 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 6,000 as from 1 February 2020 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 6,000 as from 1 March 2020 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 6,000 as from 1 April 2020 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 6,000 as from 1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 20,000 as from 1 February 2020 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 26,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 23 May 2020 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 amount.
6. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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).
7. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is 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.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Office
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