F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision16 July 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 July 2020,
regarding a contractual dispute concerning the player Aymen HUSSEIN GHADHBAN
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Michelle Colucci (Italy), member
Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member
CLAIMANT:
AYMEN HUSSEIN GHADHBAN, Iraq
Represented by Mr Bherooz Dezhbod
RESPONDENT:
CS SFAXIEN, Tunisia
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
Contractual basis
1. On 6 September 2018, the Iraqi player, Aymen Hussein Ghadhban (hereinafter: the Claimant or
the player) and the Tunisian club, CS Sfaxien (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) signed an
employment contract valid as of 6 September 2018 until 30 June 2019, for a remuneration in
the total amount of USD 150,000.
2. On 20 August 2019, the Claimant and the Respondent allegedly signed a settlement agreement,
in which the latter acknowledged a debt towards the Claimant in the amount of USD 50,000,
payable within one month after the signing of the said agreement.
Chain of events
3. On 13 May 2019 and on 22 July 2019, the Claimant allegedly sent two letters to the Respondent,
requesting the outstanding amount of USD 95,000.
4. On 28 October 2019, the Claimant allegedly sent a letter to the Respondent, requesting the
amount of USD 50,000 as per the settlement agreement.
Requests of the parties
5. On 2 December 2019, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting the sum of USD
95,000 “for compensation for breach of contract (…) plus interest.”
6. In response, the club requested the claim of the Claimant to be rejected.
Position of the parties
7. The Claimant maintained, that during the period of his contract, the Respondent only paid him
the amount of USD 55,000. Consequently, on 13 May 2019 and on 22 July 2019, the Claimant
stated that he sent two correspondences to the Respondent, requesting the outstanding amount
of USD 95,000.
8. Then, the player explained that the parties concluded the settlement agreement on 20 August
2019, according to which the club recognised a debt of USD 50,000 towards him. The Claimant
declared that despite his default notice of 28 October 2019, the USD 50,000 remained unpaid.
9. Therefore, the Claimant is of the opinion that the Respondent “breach[ed] the terms of the
original contract […] and then the agreement”. Consequently, the Claimant requested “that
SFAX club honours the terms of the original contract and immediately pay USD 95,000.”
10. In its reply, the Respondent first declared that the player received all his dues during the course
of the contractual relationship, including his appearance bonuses. In this respect, the Respondent
attached some invoices, some accounting documents and some payments receipts, however
none of them is countersigned by the Claimant.
11. Then, the Respondent indicated that it had refused to sign the settlement agreement proposed
by the Claimant in view of the fact that it had paid all the Claimant’s dues accordingly.
12. Having been requested to provide his comments on the accounting documents and payments
receipts sent by the Respondent, the Claimant stated that the receipts provided do not contain
his signature and the other documents are internal receipts that are not relevant.
13. Additionally, the Claimant pointed out that it seemed surprising that the Respondent would enter
into a settlement agreement with the Claimant and agree to pay him USD 50,000 if it had, as
alleged, already paid the USD 150,000 corresponding to the total value of the contract. In this
respect, the Claimant provided a version of the settlement agreement signed by the Respondent,
along with the email from which it was apparently sent – see below:
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 2 December 2019 and submitted for decision
on 16 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 members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed 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 (edition June 2020), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Iraqi player and a
Tunisian club.
3. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2020 edition), and considering that
the claim was lodged on 2 December 2019, the October 2019 edition of the aforementioned
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Chamber 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance
with art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 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 TMS.
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 6 September 2018, the player
and the club had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30
June 2019 for a total fixed remuneration of USD 150,000.
7. Then, the DRC noted that the player explained that he only received USD 55,000 out the USD
150,000 foreseen, leaving an outstanding debt of USD 95,000.
8. Furthermore, the members of the DRC took note of the fact that in his claim, the player alleged
that a settlement agreement had been signed by the parties on 20 August 2019, in which the
club acknowledged a debt of USD 50,000 towards the player and committed to pay said sum by
no later than 20 September 2019.
9. Moreover, the DRC took note that, according to the player, the club failed to pay any of the USD
50,000, and subsequently lodged a claim of FIFA requesting the amount of USD 95,000 which
according to him corresponds to the debt that accrued from the contract.
10. Subsequently, the members of the DRC took note that the Respondent, for its part, contested the
existence of the settlement agreement nor of any debt towards the player. In particular, the DRC
noted that the Respondent did provide alleged receipts in support.
11. What is more, the Chamber remarked that the Respondent alleged that the settlement agreement
was proposed by the player but that it had refused to countersign it.
12. In light of the foregoing, the DRC considered that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering
the parties’ position, was to determine as to whether the Respondent had a debt towards the
player, and whether the parties had entered into the settlement agreement or not.
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 either
the payment of the Claimant’s salaries or that it had a valid reason for not having done so.
14. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had stated that it had no debt towards
the player, but that it had failed to provide any documentation, including but not limited to salary
receipts countersigned by the player that would prove that the Respondent had indeed complied
with its financial obligations.
15. Recalling the provisions of 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules (cf. II.5 above), the Chamber
determined that the Respondent failed to discharge itself from the burden of proving that it had
no outstanding debt towards the player.
16. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the Respondent did not comply with its contractual obligations
and that it had a debt towards the player which had accrued from the execution of the contract.
17. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the settlement agreement, and noted that the
Respondent had disputed having signed it.
18. However, the DRC duly noted that the player had provided a copy that was signed by him and
signed and stamped by the Respondent.
19. In view of the above, the Chamber considered that, based on the evidence on file, the parties had
entered into the settlement agreement in order to settle the debt that had accrued during the
execution of the contract. As such, the DRC had no other option but to consider that this
agreement had novated said debt, and the Respondent recognised an existing debt of USD
50,000 towards the player.
20. In this respect, the DRC noted that the Respondent did not provide any valid reason as to the
non-payment of the above-mentioned USD 50,000, despite having been put in default by the
Claimant on 28 October 2019.
21. Referring to the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda” according to which the parties
must fulfil their contractual obligations towards each other, the DRC determined that the
Respondent has to pay USD 50,000 to the Claimant.
22. In addition, taking into consideration the specific request of the player on the point, the Chamber
decided to award the latter interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from the date of claim, i.e. 2
December 2019.
23. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the player.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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, Aymen Hussein Ghadhban, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, CS Sfaxien, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 50,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 2 December 2019 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amounts.
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts 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 amounts due, plus interest as established above are 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.
7. The decision is pronounced free of costs (cf. art. 18 par. 2 of the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
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