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 11 March 2021

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 11 March 2021,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mourad Batna

COMPOSITION:

Clifford J. Hendel (USA / France), Deputy Chairman

Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member

Mohamed Muzammil (Singapore), member

CLAIMANT:

Mourad Batna, Morocco

Represented by Ms Audrey Bruin

RESPONDENT:

Al Jazeera SC, United Arab Emirates

Represented by Mr Daniel M. Louis

1. On 1 August 2019, the Moroccan player, Mourad Batna (hereinafter: “the Claimant” or “the Player”) and the UAE club, Al Jazeera SC (hereinafter: “the Respondent” or “the club”) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2020 with an option of extending the contract for one year.

2. In this regard, clause 10 of the contract reads as follows:

“Without prejudice the termination terms referred to herein this contract shall be valid from the 1st of August 2019 and will expire on the 30 June 2020 with an option granted by the player to [the Respondent] practicing the extension option on or before 30 June 2021; in the event [the Respondent] exercises the extension option then the annual salary including the advance payment will be EUR 1,300,000, i.e. [the Respondent] has the sole discretion to extend the herein contract for one more year if [the Respondent] sent a letter to the herein email: […] address to extend the herein contract on or before 30 June 2020, the player grants [the Respondent] the full right of practicing the extension clause without objection, then the contract duration upon extension starts on the 1st of July 2020 and expires on 30 June 2021.”

3. Concerning the remuneration of the player, in accordance with clause 5.1 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player, inter alia, the following amounts:

For the “first contractual year: EUR 1,200,000”, payable as follows:

- EUR 100,000 on 1 August 2019;

- EUR 100,000 on 15 September 2019;

- EUR 1,000,000 divided in 11 monthly instalments of EUR 90,909 each, payable as from August 2019 until June 2020 “on the last calendar day of each month”.

For the “second contractual year: EUR 1,300,000”, payable as follows:

- EUR 300,000 on 1 September 2020;

- EUR 1,000,000 divided in 12 monthly instalments of EUR 83,333 each, payable as from July 2020 until June 2021 “on the last calendar day of each month”.

4. Art. 17.8 of the contract provides that “the Player shall pay the 1% registration fee at the UAEFA. Upon express consent of the player. Al Jazira will deduct this amount from the first payment owed to the player in every season during the duration of the employment contract.”

5. According to the player, on 19 May 2020, the Respondent verbally informed the Claimant about the imposition of a 40% salary cut on the pending salary of April 2020 as well as on the salaries of May and June 2020. Thereto, the player allegedly replied arguing that he would accept a lower and proportionate salary cut, but that a 40% reduction of his salaries was excessive.

6. Thereafter, by means of a document signed by the club and sent to the player via email on 4 June 2020, the Respondent informed the Claimant and the rest of the players of the team about its decision to impose a pay cut of 40% of their salaries of April, May and June 2020. In this context, point 2 of the document states, inter alia, the following: “The April salaries are now ready to be paid, so as soon as we have your signed and returned consent forms, we will be able [to] process your April and May salaries as soon as possible thereafter”.

7. By means of his letter dated 8 June 2020, the player informed the club about his lack of conformity as to the salary cut proposed by the club and thereby put the club in default of payment of the salaries of April and May 2020, granting the club a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default.

8. In this context, the player acknowledged having received from the club the amount of EUR 47,227 on 1 July 2020, according to him, corresponding to a partial payment of the salary of April 2020.

9. By means of his letter dated 22 June 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment in the amount of EUR 134,590 corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary of April 2020 in the amount of EUR 43,681 and the salary of May 2020 in the amount of EUR 90,909, granting the Respondent a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default.

10. On 30 June 2020, the contract expired without the Respondent having exercised the extension option.

11. In this context, the player acknowledged having received from the Respondent a payment in the amount of EUR 47,227 that would correspond to a partial payment of the salary of May 2020.

12. By means of his correspondence dated 2 July 2020, the player put the club in default of payment in the total amount of EUR 178,272.36 corresponding to the following outstanding salaries:

- EUR 43,681.36 corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary of April 2020;

- EUR 43,682 corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary of May 2020;

- EUR 90,909 corresponding to the salary of June 2020.

13. Thereto, the Respondent replied by means of a letter that was sent to the Claimant on 13 July 2020, whereby the club informed the player, inter alia, about the fact that despite him not accepting the 40% salary reduction, insofar some of the players agreed thereto, on the basis of an equal treatment to all the first team and squad members, the same salary reduction, of 40%, shall be imposed on all players.

14. By means of his correspondence dated 6 August 2020, the Claimant highlighted that the club: ignored his correspondence dated 22 June and 2 July 2020; never considered the counter-proposal of the player, who was willing to accept a 10% salary reduction; is acting against the FIFA guidelines issued on 7 April and 11 June 2020.

15. On 6 August 2020, the Claimant lodged the present claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, requesting to be awarded outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 178,272.36, plus 5% p.a. as from the corresponding due dates until the date of effective payment, broken down by the Claimant as follows:

- EUR 43,681.36 corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary of April 2020;

- EUR 43,682 corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary of May 2020;

- EUR 90,909 corresponding to the salary of June 2020.

16. Moreover, in his claim, the Claimant explained that the Respondent imposed a 40% salary reduction despite the parties not having reached any agreement with the player under which the Respondent would have been entitled to impose such a deduction. Furthermore, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent did not provide any valid reason for the late payment of the player’s salaries and that the Respondent, by means of its document of 13 July 2020, unlawfully argued that the alleged fines imposed on the player would be offsetting the player’s salaries, which –according to the Claimant– is “forbidden”.

17. In its reply, the club firstly stated that the measures taken by the club was made in good faith, were fair, proportionate and were applied on an equal basis to all the members of the football team including the technical staff and the players.

18. The club explained that on 15 March 2020, the UAEFA informed its affiliated members that a decision was made to temporary suspend all football activities in the UAE for the duration of 4 weeks and that on 12 April 2020, the UAEFA decided that the suspension of the football activities in the UAE shall be extended until further notice.

19. The club added that on the same date, 12 April 2020, the UAEFA issued Circular No. 1576 of 2020, by means of which it, inter alia, encouraged clubs to reach agreements with their players on temporary salary reduction and that “Failure to reaching an agreement, the clubs affiliated to the UAEFA may impose a temporary salary reduction that does not exceed 40% of the respective wage of the UAE national player. The UAEFA Circular stated also that this temporary salary redaction may be imposed retroactively from 15 March 2020 and until the resume of the sporting season or the end of the Covid-19 Pandemic whichever is sooner.”

20. The club held that in light of the above, it decided to take the necessary measures to ensure the survival of the club during the Covid-19 Pandemic. The Respondent had to take into considerations not only the FIFA Guidelines on Covid-19, but also the provisions of the UAEFA Circular bearing in mind that the UAE Circular shall be applied exclusively on the UAE national players who represents the majority of its squad.

21. On 29 April 2020, the club sent an email to its players with the intent of reaching a mutual agreement for a temporary salary reduction during the suspension of the football activities in the UAE.

22. The club further explained that after a virtual meeting with the players held on 19 May 2020, by means of which the parties tried to reach an agreement regarding the proposed reduction of salaries, the club, on 4 June 2020, informed via email its decision of, inter alia, reducing 40% of their salaries as of April until June 2020.

23. The club stated that as consequence of its correspondence of 4 June 2020, the players reacted by sending an email to the club on 6 June 2020, expressing their disappointment and frustration from refusing the requests they raised during the meeting of 19 May 2020.

24. Moreover, the club sustained that on 19 June 2020, the UAEFA issued a decision to cancel all major football competitions for the 2019/2020 season in the UAE.

25. The club further sustained that on 30 June 2020, “the UAEFA issued a new circular stating that the trainings for the first team of all clubs shall resume on 11 July 2020 after following the necessary protocols. This circular also stated that the UAE Circular issued on 15 March 2020 (which gives the right to the Club to negotiate and potentially to impose a temporary salary reduction on the UAE Players), to stop working with it starting from 11 July 2020.”

26. The club stated that given the “controversial feedback” from part of the players, the club “failed to reach a mutual collective agreement with all the players on the club level. This is said, the consequence for failing to reach an agreement on the club level with the players would give Al Jazira FC the right to make a unilateral decision for a salary reduction as per the FIFA Guidelines on Covid19 (…)” and UAEFA Circular, which according to the club have been “made in good faith” and in a “reasonable and proportionate” manner.

27. Furthermore, the club maintained that on 7 September 2020 “the Claimant’s salary of June 2020 was paid after deducting the relevant charges that are to be borne by the Claimant as the final settlement of the employment relationship”.

28. In this regard, the club explained that in addition to the temporary 40% salary reduction imposed on the player, representing a total amount of EUR 43,636.36, the following amounts were also deducted:

a. “The total amount of Euros 11,801.56 representing the 1% registration fees of the Claimant’s contract with the UAEFA pursuant to Article 17.8 of the Employment Contract between the Parties was deducted from the June 2020 salary;

b. The total amount of Euros 215.14 representing traffic fines as Mr Batna breached the UAE Traffic Code whilst using the Club’s car Was deducted from June 2020 salary. Thus, and in line with the Car Recipient Document signed by the Claimant that states: “Starting from the date and time of receiving the car, the recipient will be responsible for any fines, accidents or damages that may occur to the car”. Therefore, the Respondent acted within its legal rights;

c. The total amount of Euros 2,924.68 due to a hotel reservation made for Mr Batna from 02 September 2020 to 02 October 2020.”

29. In its conclusion, the club requested the following:

a. “Acknowledge that Al Jazira FC has acted in good faith and within its legal rights, and that the temporary salary reduction applied on the Claimant was made in good faith, reasonable and proportionate;

b. To dismiss the Claim and all the requests filed by Mr Batna;

c. To rule that the Claimant shall bear all the cost and expenses related to this proceeding, and pay 5,000 Euros as a contribution toward legal fees to Al Jazira FC.”

30. On 18 February 2021, the player acknowledged having received a payment from the club amounting to EUR 32,330.75 on 8 September 2020.

31. Moreover, the player maintained that said payment should be considered as payment to the remaining balance of the player’s salary of April 2020, given that: (i) “part of the salary of April 2020 (EUR 43,681.36) was still pending when the Player lodged his claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 6 August 2020” and that (ii) “the wire transfer made by the Club on 8 September 2020 does not refer to the salary of June 2020.”

32. The player, as consequence, requested that the club should be ordered to pay to the Player the following amounts:

- EUR 11,350.61 (which is: EUR 43,681.36 – EUR 32,330.75) corresponding to the remaining balance due for April 2020;

- EUR 43,682 corresponding to the remaining balance due for May 2020;

- EUR 90,909 corresponding to the salary of June 2020;

- 5% interest p.a. on the aforementioned amounts as from the due dates.

33. The player further stated that “Alternatively, if the Dispute Resolution Chamber were to consider that the wire transfer made by the Club on 8 September 2020 corresponds to the Player’s salary of June 2020 (…) still part of the salary of June 2020 remains outstanding, amounting to EUR 58,578.25 (which is : EUR 90,909 – EUR 32,330.75).”

39. With regards to the further deductions made by the club, the player held that are absolutely unjustified for the following reasons:

“On the one hand, with regard to the deduction made by the Club allegedly based on the 1% registration fee at the UAEFA, we wish to point out that the employment contract does not authorise the Club to deduct the corresponding amount from the last monthly salary of the Player, but only from the first payment owed to the Player, which is the salary of August 2019.

Article 17.8 of the Contract provides that “the Player shall pay the 1% registration fee at the UAE FA. Upon express consent of the player. Al Jazira will deduct this amount from the first payment owed to the player in every season during the duration of the employment contract.”

In this respect, it should be recalled that the employment contract was valid as of 1 August 2019 until 30 June 2020.

In view of the above, the Club was not authorised to deduct the 1% registration fee from any other salary than the Player’s monthly salary of August 2019 in accordance with the employment contract, which it refrained from doing.

On the other hand, with regard to the deduction made by the Club supposedly based on the hotel expenses, we wish to point out that the Player paid the hotel expenses himself, thus, no deduction can be made on that basis. Unfortunately, the Player is not in a position to retrieve bank statements for this period of September / October 2020, since he left the country at the end of his employment contract and changed bank.

In addition, it emerges from the documents submitted by the Club (see Exhibit 28 attached to the Club’s Statement of defence) that the Player paid for the hotel Alcazar directly: in its emails, the hotel indicates that he goes on charge directly the Player. For instance, by email dated 30 September 2020, the Procurement manager of the hotel writes to the Club: “(…) we will continue to charge Mourad Batna for the hotel stay. Yesterday he informe the hitel that he will extend for 3 nights.”

40. Finally, the player requested, alternatively to the above, that the club should be ordered to pay to the player the following amounts:

- “EUR 43,681.36 corresponding to the remaining balance due for April 2020;

- EUR 43,682 corresponding to the remaining balance due for May 2020;

- EUR 58,578.25 corresponding to the salary of June 2020;

- 5% interest p.a. on the aforementioned amounts as from the due dates.”

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as: “the Chamber or the DRC”) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2021 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 Dispute Resolution 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, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes with an international dimension between players and clubs, such as the present one, which involves a Moroccan player and a UAE club. The DRC therefore confirmed its competence to deal with the matter at stake and noted that, in any event, none of the parties had raised any objection in this respect.

3. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering that the claim was lodged on 6 August 2020, the June 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand.

4. With the above having been established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as all the documents contained in the file. However, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 1 August 2019, the parties entered into a contract, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2020, according to which the player was entitled to the remuneration quoted in point I. 3. above.

6. Thereafter, the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged the present claim before FIFA for outstanding remuneration related to the monthly salaries of April, May and June 2020, maintaining that a total amount of EUR 145,941.61 remained outstanding. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Claimant particularly contested the application of the unilateral salary reduction made by the Respondent.

7. Conversely, the Chamber noted that, in its reply, the Respondent maintained that it performed certain partial payments, that certain salary reductions were legitimately done in view of the economic effects related to the COVID-19 pandemic and in line with UAEFA Circular No. 1576 of 2020, which according to the club gave it the right to reduce the player’s salaries up to 40%.

8. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent held that it tried to reach an agreement with the players however to no avail and that, as consequence, it “acted in good faith and within its legal rights, and that the temporary salary reduction (40% of the salaries of April, May and June 2020) applied on the Claimant was made in good faith, reasonable and proportionate”.

9. The Chamber further took note of the Respondent’s explanation, according to which, with regards to the player’s salary of June 2020, it deducted from the payable 60% the following amounts:

- “Euros 11,801.56 representing the 1% registration fees of the Claimant’s contract with the UAEFA;

- Euros 215.14 representing traffic fines as Mr Batna breached the UAE Traffic Code;

- Euros 2,924.68 due to a hotel reservation made for Mr Batna from 02 September 2020 to 02 October 2020.”

10. Furthermore, the member of the Chamber noted that the Claimant in confirming receipt of the payment of EUR 32,330.75 on 8 September 2020, has also rejected the club’s argument about the abovementioned reduction regarding his salary of June 2020, as quoted in point I. 39. above.

11. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that on 19 May 2020 the Respondent tried to reach an agreement regarding the proposed deduction on the player’s salaries.

12. In this respect, and prior to further address the issue of the unilateral alteration of the player’s salary for June 2020, the DRC held that, in any case, a salary variation could not be applied retroactively. While the club’s respective decision to reduce his salary was notified to the player on 4 June 2020, the DRC noted that the player had not accepted it. Consequently, the Chamber was of the opinion that the principle of non-retroactivity should be applied as of the date of the communication of the notification of the decision to the player. Therefore, the Chamber held that the salary of April and May 2020 (i.e. until the Respondent´s decision) cannot be subject to a possible reduction and hence the Respondent should pay them in full to the Claimant.

13. The foregoing being established, the Chamber further went on to examine the Respondent’s arguments in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the player´s remuneration.

14. In this regard, the DRC wished to refer to the fact that, in light of the worldwide COVID-19 outbreak, FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate guidance and recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response is harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA issued an additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarification about the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.

15. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that, according to the COVID-19 Guidelines, clubs and employees (players and coaches) are strongly encouraged to work together to find appropriate collective agreements on a club or league basis regarding employment conditions for any period where the competition is suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

16. Equally, the Chamber recalled that, as per the said document, where clubs and employees cannot reach an agreement, a unilateral variation of the terms of a contract may only be possible if the applicable national law permits it or in case it is envisaged by an existing collective (bargaining) agreement signed between clubs and players representatives. If the applicable national law does not address the situation or collective agreements with a players’ union are not an option or not applicable, unilateral decisions to vary terms and conditions of contracts will only be recognized by FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) or Players’ Status Committee (PSC) where they were made in good faith, are reasonable and proportionate.

17. With this line of principles in mind, and while, undisputedly, no common agreement had been found between the parties, the Chamber observed that, as per the club arguments, the circular to which it refers to, states that “Failure to reaching an agreement, the clubs affiliated to the UAEFA may impose a temporary salary reduction that does not exceed 40% of the respective wage of the UAE national player. Thus, according to the aforementioned circular, the unilateral variation of the economic terms of the contract should not apply to no-UAE players, as also stated by the club in its response (point I. 20. above).

18. Moreover, the Chamber referred once again to the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, in particular, when referring to variations of employment agreements. The Chamber reiterated that said documents established a three level analysis in order to determine if the relevant variation could be recognised or not, i.e. a) the parties are able to reach an agreement; if not applicable, b) national law or a possible collective (bargaining) agreement is applicable and does address the situation; if not applicable or situation not addressed, c) the unilateral variation was made in good faith, was reasonable and proportionate.

19. After duly taking note of all of the aforementioned criteria, the Chamber highlighted that in the matter at stake, the parties were not able to reach an agreement and national law is not applicable to their employment relationship. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the third level established by the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and FIFA COVID-19 FAQ should be taken into account to assess the unilateral variation of the player’s salaries.

20. In other words, the DRC should determine whether the unilateral reduction of the salary of June 2020 performed by the Respondent was made in good faith, was reasonable and proportionate.

21. First, the DRC focused its attention on the principle of good faith when it comes to unilateral decisions to vary contractual terms. Indeed, the members of the Chamber concurred that this principle is of paramount importance when it comes to recognize a decision of this nature.

22. With this in mind, the members of the Chamber further referred to 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 burden of proof.

23. Within this context, and after duly analyzing the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation, the members of the Chamber considered that the unilateral variation of nearly half of the player’s salary of June 2020 cannot be considered as “reasonable and proportionate”. What is more, any unilateral variations of employment contracts must be duly agreed between the parties or founded on national law. The club, in this regard, did not provide such evidence and acted without having reached any agreement with the player.

24. In this respect, the Chamber reiterated that UAEFA circular No. 1576 of 2020 is not applicable to the matter at stake. Therefore, the latter cannot be used to justify the proportionality of the reduction by 60% applied by the club, which have been established by the Respondent in accordance with said circular.

25. As a consequence, the DRC concluded that the player was entitled to receive his full salaries for April, May and June 2020.

26. At this stage, the DRC further analysed the position of the Respondent regarding the reduction imposed by the latter over the player’s salary of June 2020 amounting to EUR 14,941.38 (point II. 9. above).

27. The Chamber noted that in accordance with art. 17.8 of the contract, “the Player shall pay the 1% registration fee at the UAEFA. Upon express consent of the player. Al Jazira will deduct this amount from the first payment owed to the player in every season during the duration of the employment contract.” As such, the DRC agreed with the Claimant’s position, according to which “the Club was not authorised to deduct the 1% registration fee from any other salary than the Player’s monthly salary of August 2019 in accordance with the employment contract, which it refrained from doing.”

28. Subsequently, concerning the amount of EUR 2,924.68 “due to a hotel reservation made for Mr Batna from 02 September 2020 to 02 October 2020” as well as “Euros 215.14 representing traffic fines as Mr Batna breached the UAE Traffic Code”, which were allegedly paid by the Respondent, the Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

29. In this respect, the DRC after having noted that the club limited itself to providing invoices instead of proving the alleged payments of the abovementioned amounts as well as the player’s comments on such allegations, came to the conclusion that the club had not provided enough evidence justifying the deduction of the amounts of EUR 2,924.68 and EUR 215.14 from the player’s salary of June 2020. Therefore, both payments for a total amount of U EUR 14,941.38 should be considered as unpaid by the Respondent.

30. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that during the period from April 2020 until June 2020, both included, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of EUR 145,941.61, as outstanding remuneration for the months of April, May and June 2020.

31. As a result, the Chamber established that, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the total outstanding remuneration of EUR 145,941.61.

32. Moreover, taking into account the request of the Claimant as well as the longstanding jurisprudence in this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to award 5% interest p.a. from the respective due dates taking into account the partial payments made by the Respondent and until the date of effective payment.

33. Furthermore, taking into account the previous considerations, the Dispute Resolution 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.

34. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amount 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.

35. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount 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.

36. The Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amount, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

37. The DRC referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

38. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.

39. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by establishing that the claim of the Claimant is accepted.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Mourad Batna, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, Al Jazeera SC, has to pay to the Claimant, the amount of EUR 145,941.61 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. calculated as follows:

- Over the amount of EUR 43,681.36 as of 1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment;

- Over the amount of EUR 43,682 as of 1 June 2020 until the date of effective payment;

- Over the amount of EUR 58,578.25 as of 1 July 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.

6. This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer 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