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 23 April 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 23 April 2020,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member

Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Rami El Sahley, Israel & Palestine,

represented by Mr Muhamad Taha and Reham Taha

as Claimant

against the club,

Hilal Al Quds, Palestine

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

Contractual basis

1. On 23 July 2018, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract, valid as from 1 July 2018 until 30 May 2020.

2. The contract stipulated the following:

Article (4)

“2. It shall pay a monthly salary of ILS 12,500 (twelve thousand Shekel) to the Second Party at the end of each calendar month.”

“3. It shall give the Second Party the following benefits (if any): housing allowance: the First Party shall provide the Second Party with: _*_ as a transportation allowance, _*_ as a bonus, _*_ as a travel ticket and any other benefits agreed upon by the Parties.”

“6. It shall provide insurance to cover cases of illness, treatment, injury and disability or death throughout the duration of the Contract. Insurance coverage shall include the cases whose effects still extended after the expiration of the Contract.”

“Article (6):

The First Party shall not stop paying the Second Party’s salary, reduce thereof or terminate the Contract due to the injury of the player during or as a consequence of playing the matches or training. All rights the Second Party has before the injury shall continue until the expiration of the Contract or he is cured, whichever is later, without prejudice to the Second Party’s right to claim a compensation for the disability resulted from the injury according to FIFA Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players or this Contract, whichever is better for the player.”

Competence of FIFA and admissibility of the claim

3. The Respondent contested FIFA’s competence to entertain the matter, as it deemed that the case lacked international dimension.

4. According to the club, the player has a Palestinian and was registered with the football association under his Palestinian nationality.

5. The Player, however, insisted on FIFA’s competence as the player also has an Israeli passport and therefore, deemed that the matter concerns a case with a Palestinian club and an Israeli player.

6. After having been requested to inform FIFA under which nationality the player was registered within the Palestinian Football Association (hereinafter: PFA), the PFA confirmed that the player was registered under his Palestinian nationality.

Overview of the case

7. On 13 July 2019, the player sent to the club an official warning, stating the following:

“4. My client was injured during the training in your club on 05/01/2019. The injury was a tear in the left adductor muscle, causing the player to be out of action for eight weeks. Please find attached document issued by the medical center of the club.

5. The club and its officials committed violations and defaults from the first month of the player’s injury, as they have breached the contract, especially clause 6 of the first party’s obligations which provides that the first party (the club) shall provide: “insurance to cover cases of illness, treatment, injury and disability or death throughout the duration of the Contract. Insurance coverage shall include the cases whose effects still extended after the expiration of the Contract.”

6. Until now, the club did not pay the player’s entitlements in full, which is a breach of the contract.

7. The club paid the player’s entitlements until December 2018, and then gradually began to default as follows:

a. For January 2019, it paid the player an amount of ILS 10,000, instead of ILS 12,500.

b. For February 2019, it paid the player an amount of ILS 2,250 + ILS 3,000 = ILS 5,250, instead of ILS 12,500.

c. For March 2019, it paid the player an amount of ILS 6,375, instead of ILS 12,500.

d. From April 2019 until now, it did not pay the player any entitlement.

8. On 02/06/2019, the coach Khadir Abed informed the player Rami not to attend the training and that the club has dismissed him, which also is a breach of the contract.

9. Please clarify why you delayed payments. You are the party who terminated the contract and you, therefore, shall pay its value and the amounts due from you until 30/07/2019.

10. Please note that my client has entitlements for this season in an amount of ILS 65,875 which was not paid until now. In addition, my client has entitlements until the expiration of the contract in an amount of ILS 125,000.

11. Please respond to my request ASAP. If you do not respond positively to my request, my client will submit a complaint to FIFA.”

8. On 14 July 2019, the club replied stating that it was “surprised that the player did not attend the training and important matches” and that it notified the PFA thereof. Moreover, the club requested the player to return to the training as the player was needed for the next match against Markaz Balata.

9. On 30 November 2019, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting the following:

“• Wages according to the Agreement for January 2019 in the sum of ILS 2500, after receiving only ILS 10,000 according to paragraph 4.2 of the Agreement.

• Completion of wages for the month of February 2019, in the sum of ILS 6750 after having been paid ILS 5750.

• Completion of wages for Match 2019, in the sum of ILS 6125, after having been paid ILS 6375.

• Wages for April 2019, a total of ILS 6375, assuming that the amount paid on 31-07-19 was for the month of April 2019.

• Wages for the month of April 2019 for a total of ILS 12500.

• Wages for the month of June 2019 for a total of ILS 12500.

• Wages for the month of 07-19 for a total of ILS 12500.

• Wages for the month of 08-19 for a total of ILS 12500.

• Wages for the month of 9-19 for a total of ILS 12500.

• Wages for the entire remaining period of the Agreement, due to the team's gross breach of all the terms of the Agreement from October 2019 until April 2020, 8 months in total, times ILS 12500 per month, totaling ILS 100,000.

• A total of ILS 150,000 for travel and shuttle services, including treatment expenses and third-party assistance during the 6 months of recovery process, personal training after recovery from injury in order to regain his fit state, as well as all the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff, paid out of his own pocket, and compensation for the injury and the aggravation caused to him.”

The Respondent, Club Persepolis FC (Iran), has to pay to the Claimant, Player Mario Budimir (Croatia), within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach contract in the amount of net EUR 327,000.00 plus 5% interest p.a. as 23 June 2019 until the date of effective payment.”

Position of the parties

10. In his claim, the player argued that he was regularly paid until 5 January 2019, when he was injured during training. As from then, the club started to pay him only part of his monthly salary.

11. Furthermore, the player claimed that on 2 June 2019, he was informed by the club’s coach that the club no longer wanted him in the team and he was immediately removed from the club’s Whats App groups.

12. Moreover, the player stressed that not only was the club not allowed to reduce / suspend the payment of his salaries, but the club also failed to bear the costs of his health treatment as per the contract. Thus the player deemed that the contract was breached by the club without just cause.

13. In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim and argued that the player “suffered a very minor injury” but that he refused to “submit to examinations of the professional expert doctors but instead chose to obtain certificates of irrelevant doctors of his own choice”

14. Furthermore, the club deemed that the player “refused to attend any games or training sessions” and therefore, the club “decreased the salary”.

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 30 November 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

2. Subsequently, the 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 (March 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 30 November 2019, the October 2019 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand.

4. However, before entering the substance of the matter, the Chamber noted that the club objected to the admissibility of the player’s claim, based on the fact that the player had the Palestinian nationality, thus, the dispute being of a national dimension. The Chamber further noted that the player insisted on FIFA’s competence to decide on the matter, due to the fact that he also had the Israeli nationality.

5. Having considered the argumentation of the player and of the club, the DRC first deemed it appropriate to highlight the exact wording of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations: “Art. 22 Without prejudice to the right of any player or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear: […] b) employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension; the aforementioned parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for such disputes to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs […]”. (emphasis added).

6. Bearing in mind the wording of the previous article, the DRC emphasised that the scope of its competence is given by the Regulations and only disputes of an international dimension can be heard by the Chamber.

7. After a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber noted that the player indeed had a Palestinian passport. Moreover, the Chamber took note of the correspondence of the PFA (cf. point I./6. above), which confirmed that the player was registered as a Palestinian player.

8. Based on the foregoing, and bearing in mind the content of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations, the Chamber concluded that there is no international dimension to the present matter and that in this case the Dispute Resolution Chamber is not competent to hear an employment related dispute between a Palestinian player and a Palestinian club.

9. In view of the above, the Chamber declared the claim of the player inadmissible.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Rami El Sahley, is not admissible.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer