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 25 February 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, 25 February 2020,

in the following composition:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman

Stéphane Burchkalter (France), member

Jérôme Perlemuter (France), member

on the claim presented by the club,

Al Itthad Alexandria Club, Egypt

represented by Mr Hisham Hassan Abd Rabou

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the player,

Kouadio Kouakou Fabrice Elisee, Ivory Coast

represented by Mr Ali Abbes & Mr Mohamed Rokbani

as Respondent I / Counter-Claimant

and the club,

Club Sportif Sfaxien, Tunisia

as Respondent II

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 20 August 2017, the Ivorian player, Kouadio Kouakou Fabrice Elysee (hereinafter: the Respondent I/Counter-Claimant or the player) and the Egyptian club, Al Itthad (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent or the club or Al Itthad) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid for 3 years, as from the beginning of the season 2017/2018 until the end of the season 2019/2020. In accordance with the information currently available in the Transfer Matching System, the football season 2017/2018 in Egypt started on 14 September 2017, and the season 2019/2020 is set to end on 30 June 2020.

2. In accordance with the contract, its total value amounted to Egyptian pounds (EGP) 12,726,000 (approx. EUR 718,000), payable as follows:

a. EGP 4,507,000 for the season 2017/2018 payable as follows:

 EGP 1,126,750 on 20 August 2017;

 EGP 1,126,750 on 20 January 2018;

 EGP 1,126,750 on 20 March 2018;

 EGP 1,126,750 on 20 May 2018.

b. EGP 3,977,000 for the season 2018/2019 payable as follows:

 EGP 994,250 on 20 August 2018;

 EGP 994,250 on 20 January 2019;

 EGP 994,250 on 20 March 2019;

 EGP 994,250 on 20 May 2019.

c. EGP 4,242,000 for the season 2019/2020 payable as follows:

 EGP 1,060,500 on 20 August 2019;

 EGP 1,060,500 on 20 January 2020;

 EGP 1,060,500 on 20 March 2020;

 EGP 1,060,500 on 20 May 2020.

3. Art. 6 par. 1 of the contract provided that the player “has the right to finish the employment contract for a release of USD 500,000. This clause starts in second year of this contract”.

4. Art. 6 par. 4 of the contract provided that, “in case of carless, or breaching any of terms and conditions of this contract or travelling without permission from the club, or not attending the trainings, the player will have to compensate the club with USD 1,000,000”.

5. On 6 January 2018, the player, Al Itthad and the Emirati club, Baniyas FC (hereinafter: Baniyas) signed a loan transfer agreement (hereinafter: the loan transfer agreement) for the temporary transfer of the player from Al Itthad to Baniyas, “with immediate effect until 7 June 2018”.

6. In accordance with the loan transfer agreement, Baniyas agreed to pay to Al Itthad the amount of USD 50,000 “[within] 3 days after signing this agreement”.

7. The loan transfer agreement provided for an option for Baniyas to acquire the services of the player against the payment of a transfer fee of USD 300,000, payable “on or before 15 June 2018, upon which payment the transfer of the Footballer to Baniyas shall be permanent”.

8. In accordance with art. 5 of the loan transfer agreement, in the event the option is not exercised by Baniyas, “the player shall return to [Al Itthad] with effect from 1 June 2018 and Baniyas shall instruct Emirates Football Association to issue the prescribed International Transfer Certificate to the Egyptian Football Association, per FIFA TMS, with effect from 1 June 2018”.

9. On 6 January 2018, the player signed a written declaration (hereinafter: the declaration dated 6 January 2018) in accordance with which the player committed to return to Al Itthad at the end of his loan and declared the following: “I received all my financial dues and rights from [Al Itthad] for the season 2017/2018. I have no right to claim for any financial rights now. I release [Al Itthad] from any obligations toward me. I commit to return to [Al Itthad] in case the loan was not successfully complete; otherwise, I will be obliged to pay a compensation of USD 500,000 to [Al Itthad].”

10. On an unspecified date, the player and the Tunisian club, Club Sportif Sfaxien (hereinafter: the Respondent II or the new club or Sfax) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract with Sfax) valid as from 23 August 2018 until 30 June 2021.

11. The contract with Sfax stipulates that “the player declares that he is free of any contract with any other club and that he will assume the responsibility in the event of a dispute and that [Sfax] will not be financially liable” (the original version in French reads: “Le joueur déclare qu'il est libre de tout engagement avec tout autre club, qu'il en assume toute la responsabilité en cas de contestation, auquel cas le club n'assumera aucune responsabilité financière”).

12. In accordance with art. 3 of the contract with Sfax, the player was entitled to the following remuneration:

 For the season 2018/2019:

- A monthly salary of USD 2,000;

- USD 10,000 as “performance bonus” (“prime de rendement” in French) due “at the qualification”.

 For the season 2019/2020:

- A monthly salary of USD 3,000;

- USD 10,000 as “performance bonus”.

 For the season 2020/2021:

- A monthly salary of USD 4,000;

- USD 15,000 as “performance bonus”.

13. On 24 June 2018, the EFA requested the issuance of the player’s ITC from the United Arab Emirates Football Association (hereinafter: UAEFA). On 1 July 2018, the UAEFA delivered the relevant ITC to the EFA.

14. On 18 July 2018, Al Itthad addressed a correspondence to the player, arguing that the latter was absent as from 20 June 2018 “without permission” and stating that a fine of USD 38,000 had been imposed on the player, as follows: i) USD 8,000 for the period between 20 June and 29 June 2018 and ii) USD 30,000 for the period between 30 June 2018 “up to the present date”.

15. On 2 August 2018, Sfax contacted Al Itthad and made a transfer offer to the latter for an amount of USD 225,000 in connection with the transfer of the player.

16. On 7 August 2018, the player addressed a correspondence to Al Itthad, by means of which he requested the latter to “comply with its contractual obligations and resolve his situation at the club”. In his letter, the player explained that the fine imposed by Al Itthad (cf. point 14 above) was disproportionate. In this regard, the player explained that he was waiting for the club to provide him with a work permit and a flight ticket to go back to Egypt and further stressed that he had to buy a flight ticket himself to go back to Egypt on 16 July 2018 and that Al Itthad provided him only with a short-term tourist visa on 11 July 2018. In addition, the player requested from Al Itthad a valid work permit, a flight ticket Abidjan-Cairo and also to be reintegrated “at the core of the team”.

17. On 13 August 2018, the player reiterated his request, granting 3 days to Al Itthad to remedy the default.

18. On 17 August 2018, the player unilaterally terminated the contract in writing, arguing that i) Al Itthad did not reply to his two default notices ii) Al Itthad did not register him for the upcoming competitions iii) he was not allowed to train with the professional team for 8 days and iv) he did not receive a valid working permit.

19. On 10 July 2018, Al Itthad lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the player for compensation for breach of contract, requesting the total amount of USD 500,000 corresponding to the amount indicated in the declaration dated 6 January 2018.

20. Subsequently, on 28 August 2018, Al Itthad amended its claim, requesting USD 1,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract in accordance with art. 6 of the contract.

21. In another amendment of its claim, Al Itthad further lodged a claim against Sfax, arguing that Sfax had contacted the player illegally to induce him to breach his contract and, consequently, requested from Sfax a financial compensation as well as sporting sanctions to be imposed on Sfax and the player.

22. In its claim, Al Itthad affirmed that the player “arrived back to Egypt and joined [Al Itthad] on 15 July 2018 and this is proved by the entry stamp on his passport attached”.

23. Furthermore, Al Itthad held that the player trained with the club from 16 July 2018 until 2 August 2018 and that he “traveled on 4 August 2018 to Tunisia without any permission from his club”. Al Itthad further affirmed that the player signed a contract with Sfax on 23 August 2018 “without any permission or agreement with Itthad”. More in particular, Itthad claimed that the player signed a contract with another club “without receiving a release letter” and stressed that the latter received all his remuneration for the last season “as per signed declaration by him, and his first salary instalment for season 2018-2019 is on 20.08-2018”.

24. Moreover, All Itthad affirmed that it received an “offer” from Sfax “to purchase the ITC of the player for an amount of USD 225,000” and that it “did not respond to this offer with approval or refusal”. All Itthad further held that Sfax “contacted the player illegally and asked him to travel to Tunisia on 4 August 2018 without approval or informing [All Itthad]”.

25. In reply to the claim of Al Itthad, the player lodged a counterclaim against Al Itthad in front of FIFA, requesting the total amount of EGP 8,219,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding, according to the player, to the residual value of the contract with Al Itthad. The player further requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on Al Itthad.

26. In particular, the player held that he had just cause to terminate his contract on 17 August 2018 because of the “abusive conduct of All Itthad”.

27. More in particular, the player held that at the end of his loan spell with Baniyas, Al Itthad had allegedly informed him orally of its intention to “keep him without, however, registering him”. In this context, the player affirmed that he refused the proposition of Al Itthad and that the latter decided to fine him for unjustified absences.

28. In this context, the player affirmed that he had to train alone for the period between 15 July 2018 and 4 August 2018 and that Al Itthad never provided him with a permanent work permit. Furthermore, the player sustained that the club forced him to train alone for 8 days.

29. According to the player, he requested in vain that his situation at the club be resolved by means of two default notices, as the club allegedly did not register him for the upcoming season and did not provide him with a valid work permit.

30. In this regard, the player held that his deregistration constituted a breach of contract since it de facto prevented him from being eligible to play for the club, in particular, taking into account that, according to the EFA’s Regulations Al Itthad “had already the maximum of 4 foreign players in its squad”.

31. What is more, the player argued that the fine imposed on him was disproportionate and that he was not given the possibility to defend himself. The player further stated that the club had an abusive behaviour since it allegedly tried to force him to terminate the contract.

32. Moreover, the player explained that All Itthad never provided him with a permanent visa but only provided him with a short-term tourist visa valid for 30 days and that he had to leave the country before its expiry. In this context, the player referred to the Jurisprudence of the Chamber and affirmed that the responsibility to obtain the necessary work permit or visa in order for a player to render his services to the club is incumbent on the club.

33. In its reply to the claim, Sfax rejected the allegations of Al Itthad and affirmed that it never induced the player to terminate the contract with Al Itthad. In this regard, Sfax held that the player proposed his services to the club and stated that it agreed to sign a contract with him under the condition that the player provides documentation that he terminated the contract with Al Itthad with just cause.

34. Sfax held that it did not induce the player to terminate the contract and that, prior to the signing of his contract with Sfax, i.e. on 2 August 2018, it had made a transfer offer to Al Itthad, “which proves the good faith of the club”.

35. In its replica, Al Itthad held that on 7 June 2018, contrary to the allegations of the player, “Itthad registered the player on the list of the team in the Egyptian Football Association’s database for the season 2018-2019 under the register No. CIV P000903”.

36. Furthermore, Al Itthad stressed that the EFA requested the ITC of the player from the UAEFA and that on 1 July 2018 the UAEFA sent the relevant ITC to the EFA. According to Itthad, the player refused to return to the club.

37. Al Itthad further argued that it was still interested in continuing the relationship with the player and explained that it delivered a check “with an amount of EGP 600,000 recusant the first instalment of the new season 2018-2019”.

38. Al Itthad further argued that after his loan spell ended with Baniyas, the player did not return to the club but travelled to his country and “then returned only on 15 July 2018, which is considered a long period up to 38 days resulting a weak in his physical fitness and he needed a rehabilitation”.

39. With regard to the player’s work permit, Al Itthad affirmed that “the player did not present in the club only few days during season 2017-2018 and the procedures of issuing the residence and labour permit take a long time with the Egyptian governmental authorities, so the club obtained a tourist visa for the player and his wife […] in addition the club, during the issue of the permit, transferred the player on loan to Baniyas, which led to the stopping of procedures and wait to the return of the player after the end of the loan period but the player got away and he did not return to the club only on 15 July 2018, then got away again after few days and breaching the contract with the club”.

40. In addition, Al Itthad reaffirmed that Sfax induced the player to breach the contract since it knew that the player was under contract with Al Itthad. In particular, Al Itthad argued that it received a transfer offer from Sfax but that it decided to not reply to the offer.

41. Finally, Al Itthad reiterated its previous arguments and claim.

42. In his duplica, the player held that Al Itthad had not addressed the fact that the club allegedly registered four other foreign players. In this context, the player argued that the Egyptian FA allows its affiliate clubs to have one more foreign players registered (i.e. 5 players registered in total), but that the fifth one is not qualified to play for the club.

43. Furthermore, the player affirmed having been isolated by the club and that he had to train alone and that “it is not imaginable for a player to be left aside for 20 days”.

44. Moreover, the player held that it remained uncontested that the club only provided him with a tourist visa valid only for 30 days instead of a permanent visa.

45. In its duplica, Sfax was of the opinion that it acted in good faith and reiterated its previous arguments.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was first submitted to FIFA on 10 July 2018. Consequently, the 2018 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 DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations (edition 2020), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Egyptian club, an Ivorian player and a Tunisian 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 2020) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 July 2018, the 2018 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 to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasized 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).

5. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent I/Counter-Claimant had signed an employment contract on 20 August 2017, valid for 3 years as from the beginning of the season 2017/2018 until the end of the season 2019/2020. According to the information currently available in the TMS, the season 2019/2020 is set to end on 30 June 2020.

6. The DRC recalled that in accordance with the contract, the player was entitled inter alia to the total remuneration of EGP 4,242,000 for the season 2019/2020.

7. In continuation, the DRC recalled that the player, Al Itthad and the Emirati club, Baniyas, signed a transfer agreement for the temporary transfer of the player from Al Itthad to Baniyas as from 6 January 2018 until 7 June 2018. The loan agreement further provided that the player was to return from Baniyas to Al Itthad on 1 June 2018.

8. The DRC further recalled that on 6 January 2018, the player signed a declaration in which he committed to return to Al Itthad by the end of the loan otherwise he would have to pay USD 500,000 as compensation.

9. In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed that on 15 July 2018, the player returned to Egypt. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that on 18 July 2018, Al Itthad put the player in default arguing that he returned late from the loan and imposed a fine of USD 38,000 on the player. The DRC further took note that on 7 August 2018, the player replied to the default of the club by contesting the fine and requesting the club to provide him with a valid working permit, explaining that he could not return to the club due to the club only providing him with a short-term tourist visa. The DRC noted that on 17 August 2018, the player unilaterally terminated the contract arguing that he was not provided with a work permit, was not allowed to train with the professional team and that he was not registered to play with the team.

10. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that on an unknown date, the player and Sfax signed an employment contract valid as from 23 August 2018 until 30 June 2021.

11. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of Al Itthad, who requested the total amount of USD 1,000,000 as compensation for breach of the contract in accordance with art. 6 of the contract and further requested that Sfax be jointly and severally liable as it allegedly induced the player.

12. The Chamber took note of the argumentation of Al Itthad who held that the player terminated the contract without just cause with the sole purpose of joining Sfax, while Sfax had previously made an offer to acquire the ITC of the player for USD 225,000, knowing that the player was still under contract with Al Itthad.

13. Moreover, the DRC took note that the player lodged a counterclaim against Al Itthad, requesting the total amount of EGP 8,219,000 as compensation for breach of contract by the club.

14. In his counterclaim, the Respondent I/Counter-Claimant argued that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had failed to provide him with a valid work permit, and had only providing him with a short-term tourist visa. He further held that he was forced to train alone, was informed that he could not be registered in the list of foreign players authorized to play for the club and that despite 2 default notices, the club did not remedy the offences.

15. The DRC took note that Sfax held that it did not induce the player, that the player had assured it that he had terminated the contract with just cause, and that its prior offer to Al Itthad was a sign of good faith on Sfax’s behalf.

16. In view of the foregoing and of the diverging opinions of the parties, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was of the opinion that the issue at stake, considering the claim and counterclaim lodged respectively by the Al Itthad and the player against each other, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the player on 17 August 2018, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract.

17. Reviewing the argumentations of both parties, the DRC took note that Al Itthad considered that the player came back late from the loan and then left the club to join Sfax without its authorization.

18. On the other hand, the DRC took note that the player considered that the fine imposed on him by Al Itthad for the absence was disproportionate and that he could not defend himself against said fine. The DRC also took note that the player held that he returned late from the loan since the club did not provide him with a work permit but only a tourist visa valid for 30 days only, despite 2 default notices. The player further held that he could not be registered with the club since the quota of foreign player registered was already filled and that he had to train on his own.

19. The DRC took note that Sfax denied any inducement on its part to have the player join Sfax, and held that the player made a written statement arguing that he terminated the contract with just cause.

20. Then, the Chamber recalled that Al Itthad rejected the arguments of the player and Sfax, arguing that the player was registered to player and that for the work permit, the process to acquire one was too long, which is why Al Itthad got him a tourist visa.

21. With all of the above in mind, the DRC was of the firm opinion that this case at hand was a very factual one.

22. Following this, the DRC recalled the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. With this said, the Chamber took note that the player made several assumptions for which he did not provide conclusive evidence of. For instance, the player held that he was forced to train alone, but provided no evidence in this regard, in the same was, he held that the maximum number of foreign players to be registered in the club had been reached, without providing sufficiently conclusive evidence in that sense. With this in mind, the DRC was of the opinion that both arguments could not be taken into account as they were not sufficiently substantiated.

23. In continuation, the members of the DRC took into account the argumentation of the player according to who he could not stay in Egypt and play for Al Itthad since he was not provided with a work permit.

24. In this respect, the DRC took note that the player put the club in default on 2 occasions requesting, among other things, to be provided with a valid work permit. In this regard, the Chamber noted that on 11 July 2018, the player was provided with a tourist visa valid for 30 days.

25. In this regard, the DRC recalled the argumentation of the club according to which the process to acquire a work permit in Egypt is a long and complicated process that had to be stopped when the player was sent on loan, and that to ease the process and allow the player to stay in Egypt, Al Itthad had obtained a tourist visa for the player and his wife.

26. Taking all of the above into consideration, the DRC highlighted that the responsibility to obtain the necessary work permit for a foreign player is incumbent on the club for which the player signed an employment contract.

27. With this in mind, the majority of the DRC was of the firm opinion that Al Itthad should have started the process of obtaining the work permit earlier, especially considering that it knew that the player was coming back from a loan. Furthermore, the majority of the DRC wanted to underline that the player had made the request of being provided with a permanent work permit on 7 August 2018, but was provided with a tourist visa with a validity of 30 days.

28. Considering all of the above, the majority of the Chamber was of the opinion that by not providing the player with a valid work permit, allowing the player to perform his profession in Egypt with the right permit, Al Itthad failed to comply with its obligation as an employer. Moreover, the majority of the DRC was of the opinion that by receiving a tourist visa on 11 July 2018, valid only for 30 days, the player could not be put in a situation where he could envisage the continuation of a long-term working relationship with a contract that was supposed to be valid for 2 more years (i.e. until 30 June 2020).

29. Consequently, and considering the administrative situation of the player at the time of termination, the majority of the Chamber was of the opinion that the objective circumstances at the time did provide the player with just cause to terminate the employment contract.

30. In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the majority of the DRC came to the conclusion that the player had terminated the contract on 17 August 2018, with just cause.

31. Having established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

32. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake since there was no outstanding amounts due to the player. In doing so, the members of the Chamber 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.

33. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it 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 Chamber established that the contract contained a provision in that sense, art. 6.4 according to which “in case of carless, or breaching any of terms and conditions of this contract or travelling without permission from the club, or not attending the trainings, the player will have to compensate the club with USD 1,000,000”.

34. In continuation, the DRC took note that art. 6.4 of the contract only applied in case of breach of the contract by the player without just cause, and could not be applied in the case at hand.

35. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by Al Itthad to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

36. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract until 30 June 2020. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EGP 8,219,000 (i.e. player’s remuneration for the seasons 2018-2019 and 2019-2020) serve as basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of the contract.

37. In continuation, the Chamber 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, 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.

38. In this context, the Chamber noted that the player had signed an employment contract with Sfax, valid as from 23 August 2018 until 30 June 2021, by means of which he was entitled to receive for the season 2018/2019 a monthly remuneration of USD 2,000 as well as a “prime de rendement” of USD 10,000 and for the season 2019/2020 a monthly salary of USD 3,000 and a “prime de rendement” of USD 10,000.

39. The compensation due to the player should therefore amount to EGP 6,791,590.

40. However, the majority of the Chamber was of the firm opinion that although the player had terminated the contract with just cause on 17 August 2018, he had, by his attitude, also participated in his own damage and was not free of any blame as to the situation he was in. For instance, the majority of the Chamber considered that the player should not have left Egypt while his tourist visa was still valid and running. Moreover, the majority of the Chamber believed that the chronology of the fact at hand, made it seems that the player had already started negotiating with Sfax while he was still under contract with Al Itthad.

41. With this in mind, the majority of the Chamber decided that the amount of compensation due to the player and payable by Al Itthad should be further mitigated taking into account that the DRC considered that the player was also to blame for the early termination of the contract. The majority of the Chamber therefore decided to reduce the compensation due to the player by one third.

42. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that Al Itthad must pay the amount of EGP 4,527,727 to the player which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

43. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, 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.

44. In this regard, the DRC 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.

45. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent 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, 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 in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

46. Finally, the DRC 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.

47. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Respondent I/Counter-Claimant is rejected. Equally and considering that the club was, overall, found to be in breach of contract, the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Al Itthad Alexandria Club, is rejected.

2. The counter-claim of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, Kouadio Kouakou Fabrice Elisee, is partially accepted.

3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EGP [Egyptian Pound] 4,527,727.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant is rejected.

5. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned under point 3. above.

6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with points 3. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

7. In the event that the amount due in accordance with points 3. above is not paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Claimant / Counter-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 (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

8. The ban mentioned in point 7 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.

9. In the event that the aforementioned sum 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 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

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 appeal procedure:

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

Avenue de Beaumont 2

1012 Lausanne, Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org / www.tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer