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 24 September 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
Passed on 24 September 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Syam HABIB BEN
YOUSSEF
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson, (England), Chairman
Mohamed Muzammil, (Singapore), member
Tomislav Kasalo, (Croatia), member
CLAIMANT:
Syam Habib Ben Youssef, France
Represented by SILA Lawyers
RESPONDENT:
Denizlispor Kulübü Dernegi, Turkey
I. FACTS
1. On 24 January 2020, the French player, Syam Habib Ben Youssef (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the
Turkish club, Denizlispor Kulübü Dernegi (hereinafter: the Respondent) entered into an employment
contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020.
2. According to clause 3.1.of the employment contract, the Respondent committed to pay the Claimant
the total net amount of EUR 330,000 payable as follows:
EUR 90,000 due on 31 January 2020,
EUR 60,000 due on 29 February 2020,
EUR 60,000 due on 31 March 2020,
EUR 60,000 due on 30 April 2020,
EUR 60,000 due on 31 May 2020.
3. According to par. E) of the special provisions section of the contract, “The professional player confirms
that he has been fully informed as to the club’s 2019/2020 season professional football disciplinary
regulation – a copy of which in English he is given – and undertakes in advance to sign and obey the
professional football disciplinary regulation, that is presented to the Turkish Football Federation at the
beginning of the season. Any fines imposed by the club accordingly with the Disciplinary Regulation
shall be deducted from the outstanding and/or upcoming receivables of any kind immediately”.
4. On 4 July 2020, the Respondent sent a notice to the Claimant requesting him to rejoin the team.
Moreover, the Respondent reminded the Claimant of the “proposed guiding principles” included in
the FIFA “Covid-19 Football Regulatory Issues”. The club referred in particular to the following
principles:
“It is acknowledged that, as a general rule, employment agreements shall be governed by national
law and the contractual autonomy of the parties. Having said this, and consistent with article 18
paragraph 2 of the RSTP, it is proposed that:
(i) Where an agreement is due to expire at the original end date of a season, such expiry be
extended until the new end date of the season,
(ii) Where an agreement is due to commence at the original start date of a season, such
commencement be delayed until the new start date of the season,
(iii) In the event of overlapping season and/or registration periods, and unless all parties agree
otherwise, priority be given to the former club to complete their season with their original
squad, in order to safeguard the integrity of a domestic league, MA competition and
continental competition”.
5. On 7 July 2020, the Claimant’s legal representative wrote to the Respondent, indicating that the
Claimant was under no obligation to resume training with the Respondent. In particular, the letter
underlined the following:
“In this respect, I draw your attention that FIFA has issued mere guidelines, which are not binding.
Therefore, neither FIFA nor anyone on this planet can extend the contract beyond 31 May 2020 without my client’s explicit written consent. Mr. Youssef cannot be forced to work for your club
against his will. I am attaching a FIFA Q&A document for your information and perusal, which is clear
that “clubs and employees may decide not to negotiate extensions for (expiring) existing agreements.”
Mr. Youssef has availed of this right and has decided not to negotiate an extension of his contract
with your club. Therefore, he is an out-of-contract player as of 1 June 2020”.
6. On 12 July 2020, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s letter of 7 July 2020 and acknowledged
the Claimant’s refusal to rejoin the team. In light of the Claimant’s decision, the Respondent referred
to the FIFA regulations, in particular section 9 of the Definitions section of the RSTP (definition of
“season”) as well as art. 18 par. 2 of the RSTP with respect to the minimum length of an employment
contract. Equally, the Respondent referred to art. 19 par. 3 of the RSTP of the Turkish Football
Federation, according to which “In any case end date of the contracts has to be decided as 31st May.
In the case of official games continue after the expiration of the contract’s end date, the duration of
the contract is considered extended until the end of the games”.
7. The Respondent concluded its letter of 12 July 2020 by stating that the aforementioned regulations
are binding on the Claimant and that, therefore, he has to perform his obligations under the contract
until the end of the season. Thus, the Respondent intimated to the player that he should rejoin the
team 12 July 2020, 7pm, before the game against Trabzonspor due to be played on 13 July 2020,
otherwise he shall be fined for having left the club without authorisation.
8. On 12 July 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA with regard to
outstanding remuneration.
9. The player explains that, throughout the duration of the employment contract, the club made the
following payments:
EUR 2,500 on an unspecified date,
EUR 25,000 on 14 February 2020,
EUR 35,000 on 13 March 2020,
EUR 10,000 on 16 April 2020,
EUR 7,500 on 27 April 2020,
EUR 10,000 on 4 May 2020,
EUR 7,500 on 19 June 2020.
TOTAL: EUR 97,500
10. The Claimant stated, therefore, that the Respondent owes him outstanding remuneration totalling
EUR 232,500 net. The Claimant asks FIFA to take into account that, according to clause 3.1 of the
employment contract, all amounts due to him are on a net basis, free of taxation, the Respondent
being responsible for the filing and payment of all taxes relating to the payments due to him.
11. Thus, the Claimant made the following requests:
“The Respondent has to pay the Claimant outstanding wages of EUR 232,500, plus interest of 5%
p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
a. On EUR 52,500 as of 1 March 2020;
b. On EUR 60,000 as of 1 April 2020;
c. On EUR 60,000 as of 1 May 2020; and
d. On EUR 60,000 as of 1 June 2020.
This payment of salaries to the Claimant shall be made on a net basis, free of any taxation, the
Respondent being responsible for the filing and payment of all taxes relating to this payment of salaries
due to the Claimant.
The Respondent shall be imposed sporting sanctions pursuant to Article 24bis RSTP”.
12. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent indicated that it had paid the Claimant a total amount of EUR
97,500 and provided copies of the respective payment receipts.
13. The Respondent stated that the payments made were all made on time prior to the COVID-19
pandemic. The Respondent underlined that the pandemic has affected all football activities, including
the Turkish football leagues, which were suspended on 20 March 2020 and resumed on 15 June
2020.
14. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged that the player left the team camp on 4 July 2020 without any
valid reason and without any notice. The club management learned that the Claimant had no intention
of coming back to the Respondent.
15. The Respondent further explained that since the Claimant refused to rejoin the team after the letter
of 12 July 2020 (cf. par. I. 6 and 7 above), it decided to impose a fine on the Claimant for every day
of absence and for every official match which he missed. In this regard, the Respondent requested the
DRC to accept these fines as valid and to deduct them from the unpaid salaries due to the Claimant.
16. With respect to the fines, the club held that it imposed them in accordance with the Club Internal
Disciplinary Regulation, which was duly accepted and signed by the player. In this context, the club
made reference to the following articles of the regulation:
“ARTICLE 8. APPLICATION PRINCIPLES OF FINES
The fines will be calculated according to the cost of the player to the club.
The cost of the player (Total Remuneration): All financial obligations of the Club set forth in the
employment agreement, including the fringe benefits, (the total amount of per game salaries,
disregarding the number of games the player actually participated, is also to be included), all sorts of
rights (including the monetary benefits that are committed by the agreement signed by the Player or
the third parties for the image rights of the Player and the Mal money paid to the FIFA Players' Agent
in regards to the transfer of the Player) is the total remuneration of the Player. In addition to this, if
the Club had paid or committed to pay any transfer compensation (loan remuneration is also included)
for the transfer of the Player and/or agent's, these will be also added to the cost of the Player.
(a) Daily cost of the player:
The daily cost of the player shall be calculated by dividing “the annual cost of player to 300. If the
Player serves the Club for half a season due to his transfer to another Club during the mid-transfer
window, daily cost of the player shall be calculated by dividing “the annual cost of the player” to 150.
ARTICLE 9 DETERMINATION OF FINES
…
(2) Fines in case of not participating to training and matches and failture to obey the program, camps
and being late:
At least the 5 days cost of the player at the first time, according to the decision by the board”.
ARTICLE 6 – INFRINGEMENTS
… (2) Not participating to Training, Camps and Matches and Failure to Obey the Program and Being
Late; …
(e) In case the Player refuses to appear/to be fielded in a game, despite the Coach’s directive (Differently
from para (a), the fine will be five times higher than the regular fine)”
17. The Respondent further highlighted that it held a meeting at the end of the season, during which it
was decided to impose a fine on the Claimant in light of his long absence.
18. The decision was to impose a fine of EUR 90,200 on the Claimant, which was calculated as follows:
Total cost of the Claimant: EUR 330,000
Daily cost of the Claimant: EUR 330,000/150 = EUR 2,200
Since the Claimant left the team’s training camp on 4 July 2020 and the season ended on 25 July
2020, the player was absent for 21 days
The board decided to impose a fine of EUR 2,200 for each day of absence: EUR 46,200
As the player missed four official matches during this period, the Board decided to impose a fine of
EUR 11,000 for each match, equalling EUR 44,000
TOTAL fines: EUR 90,200
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also: 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 13 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 DRC 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 (edition
August 2020), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employmentrelated
dispute with an international dimension between a French player and a Turkish club.
3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition August 2020) and considering that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 13 July 2020, the June 2020 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the
present matter as to the substance.
4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started by acknowledging the facts of the case
as well as the documents 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. The Chamber started by acknowledging that the parties concluded an employment contract valid as
from 24 January 2020 until 31 May 2020. According to said contract, the Claimant was entitled to a
total net salary of EUR 330,000.
6. According to the Claimant, upon expiry of the employment relationship, the Respondent had failed to
pay the entire remuneration due to him under the contract. In this context, the Claimant claims that
the Respondent had only paid him an amount of EUR 97,500 and therefore argues that the
Respondent owes him outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 232,500 net plus interest.
7. The Respondent, for its part, confirmed having paid a total amount of EUR 97,500 and points to the
COVID-19 pandemic as a reason as for the non-payment of the Claimant’s outstanding remuneration.
8. Furthermore, the Respondent argues that the Claimant failed to resume training on 4 July 2020.
Indeed, according to the Respondent, the Claimant should have re-joined the team and was bound by
the employment contract until the end of the extended season. In this regard, the Respondent referred
to the FIFA “Covid-19 Football Regulatory Issues”.
9. In light of the fact that the Claimant refused to re-join the team in July 2020, the Respondent’s Board
took the decision to impose a fine of EUR 90,200 on the Claimant. The Respondent deems that such
fine was in line with the Club Internal Disciplinary Regulation, which was duly accepted and signed by
the player. Thus, the Respondent requests the DRC to deduct the amount of EUR 90,200 from the
outstanding remuneration due to the Claimant.
10. In light of the parties’ diverging positions in this matter, the Chamber determined that it must answer
the following two questions:
i. Was the employment contract validly extended beyond 31 May 2020 ?
ii. Was the Respondent entitled to deduct the fines imposed on the Claimant and what is,
consequently, the amount that is outstanding towards the Claimant ?
11. As to the first question, that is, the issue as to whether the employment contract was validly extended,
the Chamber referred to the Covid-19 Football Regulatory Issues, according to which FIFA has issued
recommendations to stakeholders with respect to expiring agreements, which state the following:
“It is acknowledged that, as a general rule, employment agreements shall be governed by national law
and the contractual autonomy of the parties. Having said this, and consistent with article 18 paragraph
2 of the RSTP, it is proposed that:
(iv) Where an agreement is due to expire at the original end date of a season, such expiry be extended
until the new end date of the season”.
12. The Chamber further noted that according to the COVID-19 Football Regulatory Issues Q&As, which
were issued on 11 June 2020, it is specified as follows:
“(9) Can a club or an employee decide not to negotiate an extension of an (expiring) existing
agreement, if the end date of the current season is extended?
FIFA strongly recommends that clubs complete their domestic season with their original squad, in order
to safeguard the integrity of their competition(s).
However, clubs and employees may decide not to negotiate extensions for (expiring) existing
agreements.”
13. Reverting to the matter at hand, the Chamber recognised that, indeed, the employment contract
between the parties was due to expire on 31 May 2020, which corresponds to the end of the Turkish
season and that consequently a negotiation as to its extension was initiated by the Respondent in
accordance with the above-mentioned guiding principles issued by FIFA.
14. This being said, the DRC established that, although it is strongly recommended for clubs and players
to negotiate an extension of an expiring agreement, the parties may opt not to do so, in accordance
with the principle of contractual autonomy of the parties. In other words, an extension of an expiring
agreement would require the consent of both parties. In this regard, it is clear from the facts and
arguments presented by the parties that the Claimant had explicitly informed the Respondent that he
did not agree to an extension of the employment contract.
15. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was under no obligation to accept
the extension of the employment contract and, therefore, that the Respondent cannot claim that the
employment contract was validly extended. This conclusion implies that the employment contract
expired on 31 May 2020 as originally stipulated in the contract itself.
16. As to the second question, that is, whether the Respondent was entitled to impose a fine on the
Claimant and which amounts are outstanding towards the latter, the DRC reiterated that the
employment contract had expired on 31 May 2020. As a consequence, the Claimant had no obligation
to re-join the team as of 4 July 2020, since he was a free player at the time.
17. It follows that the fines, which were imposed on the Claimant due to his supposed absence, were not
justified and, therefore, the Chamber finds that there is no reason to deduct the amount of these fines
from the outstanding remuneration due to the Claimant. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to its
well-established jurisprudence, according to which fines may not be used as a means to offset any
outstanding remuneration due to a player.
18. The Chamber then turned its attention to the amount of the outstanding remuneration due to the
Claimant, bearing in mind that the Respondent has not contested owing the Claimant remuneration.
Indeed, the Respondent has confirmed that it paid the Claimant a total amount of EUR 97,500, which
corresponds precisely to the amount the Claimant stated having received.
19. Looking at the contractual terms, the DRC recalled that the Claimant was entitled to a total amount
of EUR 330,000 net. Given that he has received EUR 97,500, the amount of EUR 232,500 remains
outstanding.
20. The above considerations led the Chamber to conclude that the Respondent has not complied entirely
with its financial obligations towards the Claimant without any valid reason. Therefore, the Respondent
must pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 232,500 net plus 5% interest as of the respective due dates
of payment according to the employment contract, as follows:
o 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 52,500 as of 1 March 2020 until the date
of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 60,000 as of 1 April 2020 until the date
of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 60,000 as of 1 May 2020 until the date of
effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 60,000 as of 1 June 2020 until the date
of effective payment.
21. As a conclusion, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s claim is fully accepted.
22. 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.
23. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has
competence to impose a sanction on the club. In particular, the sanction against clubs shall consist in
a ban 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.
24. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that in the event that the Club does not
pay the amount due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player, following
the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the club, 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 club in accordance with
art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
25. The Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction 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, Syam Habib Ben Youssef, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, Denizslispor Kulübü Dernegi, has to pay to the CLAIMANT, the following
amount:
- EUR 232,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
o 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 52,500 as of 1 March 2020 until the date
of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 60,000 as of 1 April 2020 until the date
of effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 60,000 as of 1 May 2020 until the date of
effective payment;
o 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 60,000 as of 1 June 2020 until the date
of effective payment.
3. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
4. The Respondent 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).
5. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The 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. 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 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