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 18 June 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed via videoconference, on 18 June 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Alfred SANKOH
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Mohamed Muzammil (Singapore), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Alfred Sankoh, Sierra Leone
Represented by Mr Felix Majani
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Majees Sports Club, Oman
INTERVENING PARTY:
Notodden FK, Norway
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Contractual basis
1. On 1 January 2019, the Sierra Leonean player, Alfred Sankoh (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent), and the Omani club, Majees Sports Club (hereinafter: the
Omani club or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter:
the contract) valid from 1 January 2019 until 31 May 2019.
2. According to the contract, the player was entitled to a salary of OMR 1154, i.e. “around USD
3,000”. Furthermore, the contract also specified a “contract provider” of OMR 1923, i.e. “around
USD 5,000”.
3. According to art. 9 of the contract, if the player violated any of the obligations to which he is
subject under, the Omani club could impose the following sanctions:
- Warning;
- Fine up to on basic monthly salary;
- Suspension;
- Termination.
4. On 1 September 2019, the player signed an employment contract with the Norwegian Club
Notodden FK (hereinafter: the Norwegian club or the intervening party) valid as from the date of
signature until 31 December 2019.
Chain of events
5. On 9 May 2019, the player put the Omani club in default of his April salary payment and gave
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant a 15-day deadline to comply.
6. On 2 June 2019, the player requested the Omani club to pay “all outstanding wages within 10
days”.
Requests of the parties
7. On 18 June 2019, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the Omani club and requested
to be awarded USD 6,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% p.a. on USD 3,000 with effect from 1 May 2019 until full and final payment; and
- 5% p.a. on USD 3,000 with effect from 1 June 2019 until full and final payment.
8. The player also requested FIFA to find the Omani club in breach of art. 12bis (1) of the “2016
FIFA RSTP”.
9. Finally, the Player requested that “the notice of these DRC proceedings to the Club serve as notice
of written default to them to the extent and provided that they will not have paid the Player’s
May 2019 salary as at 10 June 2019”..
10. The Respondent lodged a counterclaim in response, and requested the following:
- To dismiss the complaint and deem that the contract was terminated from the “date of escape
of the player on 1 May 2019”;
- Compensation of USD 30,000 pursuant to art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players and observing the impact of the escape of the player and causing the fall of the club
to the second division;
- Compensation of USD 3,000 for the “salary of a month”, by virtue of art. 9 of the contract;
- Impose severe penalties and suspend the player for a period of no less than 4 months;
- Charges and translation fees;
- As for the salary of April 2019, the Omani club confirmed that it was outstanding and expressed
its will to pay it.
Position of the parties
11. In its claim, the player argued that the Omani club undertook to pay him a monthly salary of USD
3,000, but that said club failed to pay him the salaries for April 2019 and May 2019.
12. The player claimed that his wages were at all material times paid in cash with the Omani club
asking him to co-sign a document in acknowledgment of receipt. The player provided copies of
said receipts.
13. In reply, the Omani club declared that the player has received his salary for the months of January,
February and March 2019 but that he disappeared “without prior notice”, even without
obtaining his salary for April. According to the Omani club, on 1 May 2019 the player violated
his contractual obligations by leaving the club and cutting all contact without any prior notice. In
this regard, the Omani club submitted a copy of the statement of the Airport Authorities showing
that the player departed the Sultanate of Oman.
14. In relation to the default letters sent, the Omani club stated that the email on the default notice
is not its official email and that as such the Omani club did not receive any messages concerning
the lawsuit. According to the Omani club, the player violated his contractual obligations.
15. Concerning the salary of April, the Omani club does not deny that the player is entitled to receive
it but stated that since communication was lost, it was “impossible to deliver his salary”.
16. According to the Omani club, the player “escaped” before completing his contract, as there were
three official playoff matches to be played on 18 May 2019, 23 May 2019 and 28 May 2019.
The Omani club argues that his absence directly affected its results, at a time when it was
“fighting to keep his stay within the Oman First Division League”. The Omani club stated that
because of the player’s absence, it achieved negative results and was relegated.
17. The Omani club insisted that it never delayed a salary payment and that the player never
complained in this respect.
18. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player declared that he never disappeared and/or missed
training as from 1 May 2019. The Player states he was available and even played in the club’s
league match against Muscat on 8 May 2019.
19. The Player claimed that the Omani club consented to him leaving the country on 9 May 2019 in
order to be with his wife who had given birth on 17 April 2019. According to the player, the
Omani club turned down his request in April to go see his wife but promised to allow him to
leave once the fixtures congestion eased.
20. The player declared that on his last match on 8 May 2019, he picked up a yellow card that meant
he was suspended for the next match. As such, the player stated that the president of the Omani
club granted him permission to travel to Norway. The player claimed that if he had left without
permission it would have been normal to expect the Omani club enquire as to his whereabouts
or fine him.
21. According to the player, whilst in Norway, he remained in contact with the Omani club, as seen
through his default notices. In this respect, the player questioned the Omani club’s stance
regarding his alleged importance, and pointed out that the Omani club never requested his return
for the fixtures of May 2019.
22. The player claimed that the email address used to send the default notices was the one on the
footnote of each page of the contract.
23. According to the player, he left on 9 May 2019 with the Omani club’s knowledge and permission
and therefore he cannot be considered to have terminated the contract without just cause. The
player is of the opinion that even if he had left without permission, this cannot be deemed a
termination but only a breach of contract for which disciplinary measures should have been
imposed.
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 18 June 2019 and submitted for decision on
18 June 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 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
emphasised 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 (June 2020 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes with an
international dimension between players and clubs.
3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations of the Status and Transfer
of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed
that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition March 2020), and considering that the claim was lodged on 18 June 2019, the
June 2019 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable
to the matter at hand.
4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC
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 1 January 2019, the player and
the Omani club had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until
31 May 2019, pursuant to which the club undertook to pay to the player the remuneration, as
established in point I.2 above.
7. Furthermore, the DRC took note of the fact that, on 9 May, the player had put the Omani club in
default of payment of the amount of USD 3,000, corresponding to the salary for April, setting a
15 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default. What is more, the Chamber noted that on 2
June 2019, the player put the club in default for the salaries of April and May 2019, once again
setting a 15-day deadline to comply.
8. Moreover, the DRC took note that the player sent the aforementioned notices to the email
address of the Omani club which was inputted in the contract.
9. Subsequently, the members of the DRC took note that the Omani club, for its part, did not contest
that it didn’t pay the player the salary of April 2019, but argued that the player had left without
notice and/or authorisation in or around May 2019, and that he was absent for 3 fixtures that
took place between 18 and 28 May 2019. The DRC noted that the Omani club considered that
this behaviour amounted to a serious breach of the contact.
10. In this respect, the Chamber remarked that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insisted that the
absence of the player was detrimental to its results which ultimately led to its relegation at the
end of season 2018/2019. As such, the Chamber noted that the Omani club lodged a counterclaim
and did seek damages for the player’s responsibility in its relegation.
11. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Omani club contested the receipt of the player’s
default notices, stating that he had used an email that is different from its official email.
12. In light of the foregoing, the DRC considered that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering
the parties’ positions, was to determine as to (1) whether the Omani club duly received the
player’s default notices or not; (2) if the player left the Omani club without permission, and in
the affirmative, the consequences of such unauthorised absence.
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 that
it did not receive the player’s notices and it did not give permission to the player to leave the
Omani club in or around May 2019.
14. Concerning the player’s default notices, the DRC noted that it was uncontested that the player
sent his default notices to the email address that is displayed within the contract.
15. As such, the Chamber determined that there was a legitimate expectation for the player that the
contact details of the Omani club displayed within the contract were its official mean of
communication. In addition, the DRC remarked that there were no documentation on file that
evidenced that the Omani club informed the player that its official contact details had changed
during the course of the contractual relationship.
16. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the player had duly sent his default notices to the Omani
club, and that they were duly received by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
17. Regarding the alleged unauthorised absence of the player, the DRC observed that the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant did not provide any documentation evidencing that it had refused to give
permission to the player to leave nor requested the immediate return of the player after he had
left Oman.
18. As such, the DRC determined that the player did not leave without permission, and that, in the
absence of request for his return, the Omani club tacitly agreed to the player’s absence.
19. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not
bring any valid reason as to the non-payment of the player’s salaries of April and May 2019,
despite having been put in default accordingly.
20. In accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, the Chamber emphasised
that the Omani club is liable to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD
6,000, corresponding to the outstanding salaries of April and May 2019.
21. In addition, taking into consideration the specific request of the player on the point, the Chamber
decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the total amount of USD 6,000 as
follows:
- 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2019 until the date of effective payment on the amount of
USD 3,000;
- 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective payment on the amount of
USD 3,000;
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 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.
24. 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 within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, 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.
25. 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, Alfred Sankoh, is accepted.
2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Majees Sports Club, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-
Respondent, USD 6,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- on USD 3,000 as from 1 May 2019 until the date of effective payment;
- on USD 3,000 as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective payment.
3. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. 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 Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE FINDINGS OF THE DECISION:
In accordance with arts. 15 and 18 of the Procedural Rules, this correspondence only communicates
the findings of the decision without grounds.
Should any of the parties wish to receive the grounds of the decision, a written request must be
received by FIFA, within 10 days of receipt of notification of the findings of the decision. Failure to
do so within the stated deadline will result in the decision becoming final and binding and the parties
being deemed to have waived their rights to file an appeal.
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