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 29 September 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 September 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Michael Azekhumen
Ejianreh
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
MICHAEL AZEKHUMEN EJIANREH,
Nigeria
represented by Mr Georgi Gradev
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
SAHAM SPORTS CLUB, Oman
represented by Ms Maryam Lachhab
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 9 July 2019, the Nigerian player, Michael Azekhumen Ejianreh (hereinafter: the player) unilaterally
terminated his employment contract the Egyptian club, Nogoom El Mostakbal.
2. On 12 July 2019, the player lodged a claim against Nogoom El Mostakbal in front of FIFA for breach
of contract (ref. 19-01466).
3. On 16 August 2019, the player and the Omani club, Saham Sports Club (hereinafter: the club) entered
into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 20 August 2019 until 31 May
2020.
4. Clause 2 of the contract provides that “the validity of the Contract is subject after the arrival to
Sultanate and receive international transfer certificate and pass medical checkup and Technical and
completing the registration in the Omani Football Association.”
5. According to clauses 3 and 4 of the contract, the player was entitled to receive the following
remuneration:
- USD 5,000 payable “after month after we receive the [ITC] and pass medical check up and
Techican and completing the registration in the Omani Football Association”;
- USD 3,000 as monthly salary.
6. Furthermore, the contract stipulated the following:
“in case, if the player have repeated violations, the club will deducted 60% from month salary for
each day”
“13. If the player is absent from the official game without an acceptable excuse will be deducted a
full month’s salary in addition to other penalties.”
7. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 2 September
2019, the club entered a transfer instruction in the TMS in order to engage the player permanently.
The player's former club is the Egyptian club, Nogoom El Mostakbal. The instruction type was “Out
of contract free of payment”.
8. According to the information contained in the TMS, on 17 September 2019, the Egyptian Football
Association rejected the issuance of the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC), holding that
“the contract between the former club and the professional player has not expired”.
9. On 26 September 2019, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee allowed the Oman Football
Association to provisionally register the player with the club.
10. According to the information in the TMS, the player was registered with the club on 26 September
2019.
11. On 21 February 2020, case 19-01466 was decided upon by the DRC, whereas the grounds were
notified to the parties (i.e. the player, Nogoom El Mostakbal and the club) on 5 March 2020. In said
decision, the DRC, inter alia, concluded that the player had terminated the employment contract with
Nogoom El Mostakbal with just cause.
12. On 1 April 2020, the player informed the club in writing that he had only received the amount of
USD 11,050 from the club, as follows:
13. In the said letter, the player further outlined that the total outstanding amount equals USD 12,950,
as follows:
14. The player gave the club fifteen days to pay the outstanding amount of USD 12,950.
15. On 4 April 2020, the club responded to the player holding, inter alia, the following:
- The player had misled the club, since he still had a contract with Nogoom El Mostakbal. This
delayed his registration with the club until FIFA allowed a provisional registration. In this respect,
the club invoked clause 2 of the contract, arguing that the contract was suspended until receipt
of the player’s ITC;
- The current COVID-19 situation led to the club defaulting, arguing that it is willing to “coordinate
with the player to settle all his financial dues. That is due after deduction of the violations, in any”.
16. On that same day, 4 April 2020, the player responded to the club’s correspondence, firstly holding
that “Clause 2 of the contract is null and void because the validity of an employment contract cannot
be made subject to a medical (Article 18.4 RSTP) or the execution of (administrative) formalities, such
as, but not limited to, the registration procedure in connection with the international transfer of [the player], which were of the sole responsibility of [the club] and on which the player had no influence”.
In other words, the contract became valid on 20 August 2019 and not on 26 September 2019.
17. In said letter, the player further maintained that he had not acted in bad faith, as is demonstrated by
the decision in case 19-01466. With regard to the club’s “COVID-19” argument, the player argued
that the club’s “default of payment backdates as of December 2019 and has nothing to do with
COVID- 19, which arose in March 2020”.
18. On 17 April 2020, the player sent a final default letter to the club, providing the club until 3 May
2020 to pay the outstanding amount of USD 12,950.
19. On 4 May 2020, the player terminated the employment contract in writing. In said termination letter,
the player maintained that the outstanding amount of USD 12,950 had not been paid. Furthermore,
as per the player, the amount of USD 3,000 corresponding to the April 2020 salary had not been paid
either.
20. Also on 4 May 2020, the player lodged a claim against the club for breach of contract, requesting the
following:
- USD 15,950 net, plus interest of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment, as follows:
On USD 3,440 as of 27 October 2019;
On USD 510 as of 1 January 2020;
On USD 3,000 as of 1 February 2020;
On USD 3,000 as of 1 March 2020
On USD 3,000 as of 1 April 2020;
On USD 3,000 as of 1 May 2020.
- USD 3,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interests p.a. as from 4 May 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- The imposition of sporting sanctions on the club.
21. In support of his claim, the player highlighted that the main reason for the unilateral contract
termination on 4 May 2020 “was the nonpayment of the balance on the sign-on fee (USD 3,440) per
Clause 3 of the Contract, as well as the balance to the December 2019 salary (USD 510) and the
monthly salaries from January through April 2020 (USD 12,000) per Clause 4 of the Contract”.
22. The player summarized the outstanding amounts as follows:
23. In continuation, the player argued that clause 2 of the contract is “null and void because the validity
of the Contract cannot be made subject to a medical or technical examination […] or the execution
of (administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited to, the registration procedure in connection
with the international transfer of the [player], which were of the sole responsibility of the [club] and
on which the [player] had no influence”. Therefore, the player concluded that the contract entered
into force on 20 August 2019.
24. Concerning the club’s argument that he had misled the club, the player maintained that turning to
FIFA for a provisional registration is “standard practice” and that the club “cannot blame the player
for the bad-faith behavior of the former club”.
25. Furthermore, as to the argument related to the COVID-19 outbreak, the player underlined that the
club’s “default of payment backdates as of 26 October 2019 […] and has nothing to do with COVID-
19, which arose in mid-March 2020”.
26. Finally, concerning his request for the imposition of sporting sanctions, the player stated that “it is
not the first time the Respondent acts contrary to the RSTP in recent time (cf. also proceedings Ref.
No. 19-01711 and 19-01558)”.
27. In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim and deemed that the “Claimant’s bad faith act has
caused several losses to the respondent as the claimant missed playing for the first three (3) official
matches in the national league season”.
28. In this context, the club stressed that it was not aware that the “claimant is still under a three (3) year
contract with Nogoom Football Club” and that the player confirmed in writing that he was a “free
player”.
29. Moreover, the club argued that in line with the principle “nulla poema sine culpa” it was entitled to
“deduct the violation’s fees from the claimant’s due amount on march 24, 2020.”
30. In this regard, the club explained that it deducted an amount of USD 22,500 due to the following
“infractions”:
Breaches Sanctions
Training absence on 01/01/2020 USD 1,800
Training absence on 01/02/2020 USD 1,800
Match absence vs Maskut Club on 09/15/2019 USD 3,000
Match absence vs Oman Club on 01/21/2019 USD 3,000
Training absence on 01/11/2019 USD 900
Training absence on 01/07/2019 USD 1,800
Training absence on 01/22/2019 USD 1,800
Training absence on 01/11/2019 USD 1,800
Training absence on 12/27/2019 USD 1,800
31. In addition, the club deemed that “the claimant has never paid his house rent since September 2019
up to this date, and since the respondent is ‘the employer’, he was contacted on his behalf by the house responsible asking to settle rent for the occupant ‘the claimant’ in this case, according to the
Omani regulations” (note: letter from club allegedly sent to the player regarding the housing costs on
file).
32. Moreover, according to the club, the Omani Government decided that “all professional sporting
activities and facilities have been suspended and closed throughout the country, up to today” due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
33. In this regard, the club provided a decision issued by the Oman Football Association which stated that
“clubs are not liable to pay players’ and staff salaries starting from 14th March 2020 until training
sessions start in preparation for the remaining rounds of season 2019-2020”.
34. Furthermore, the club highlighted that by 4 April 2020, the player would have been entitled to a total
amount of USD 21,000 and that the club already paid USD 11,050 and that the “amounts of the
violations fees” corresponded to USD 22,500.
35. Consequently, “at the day of the first claimant notification he was owed the defendant an amount
of USD 12,550, not a creditor”.
36. Therefore, the club lodged a counterclaim and requested the amount of USD 20,550, calculated as
follows:
“USD 21,000 – (USD11,050 + USD22,500 + USD3000) = USD 15,550” plus legal fees in the
amount of USD 5,000.
37. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player rejected the club’s arguments.
38. In particular, the player stressed that the club “has never had a registered complaint against
the [player] for alleged absence from training and matches. All the evidence adduced by the
Respondent to FIFA is unilaterally created by the former to serve its interest in the present
proceeding”.
39. Moreover, the player highlighted that he has never committed any breach of contract whatsoever
and that he was never notified of any disciplinary proceedings against him, which would have granted
him the right to be heard.
40. Furthermore, the player argued that clause 13 of the contract “is unilateral and of
a potestative nature, as it appears to grant an arbitrary capacity to the Respondent to deduct the
Claimant’s salary”.
41. With regard to the first 2 games which he missed, the player highlighted that he “was
provisionally registered with the Respondent through a FIFA decision on 26 September 2019, which
was the Respondent’s obligations” and therefore, he cannot be sanctioned for his “justifiable absence
from the matches player on 15 and 21 September 2019”.
42. In addition, the player stressed that he was not absent from any training sessions as claimed by the
club and that the club did not provide any evidence for such statements.
43. Having said this, the player wished to point out that in accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC
financial sanctions shall not be offset against the financial obligations towards players.
44. With respect to the “house rent” the player argued that the club failed to “quantify its claim” and
therefore he cannot address the club’s allegations in the respect and that such a claim is
“unsubstantiated and groundless”.
45. Upon request from the FIFA administration, the player stated that he remained unemployed after the
termination of the contract.
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 player’s
claim was lodged on 4 May 2020, whereas the club’s counterclaim was lodged on 25 June 2020.
Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
2. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and stated 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 DRC would, in principle, be competent to deal with the
matter at stake. The matter concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Nigerian player and an Omani club.
3. This being said, the Chamber acknowledged that the club had contested FIFA’s competence in light
of the fact that, allegedly, a dispute between the parties was pending before the Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Oman Football Association (hereinafter: the NDRC). In this regard, the Chamber noted
that the club had provided an attestation issued by the General Secretary of the Oman Football
Association dated 8 June 2020, which states as follows: “This is certify that Saham Club filed a legal
case against the player: Michael Azekhumen – Nigerian nationality on 6/4/2020 in the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of Oman and the case is still under DRC process (…)”.
4. The Chamber concurred that said attestation did not clarify the exact nature of the case, nor did the
club provide a copy of the claim allegedly lodged against the player. Furthermore, there is no evidence
that the player indeed participated in said proceedings. Equally, the DRC noted that the employment
contract concluded between the parties does not contain any jurisdiction clause, let alone a
jurisdiction clause in favour of the NDRC.
5. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Chamber decided to reject the club’s objection to FIFA’s
competence in the present matter and ruled, therefore, that the claim is admissible and that it is
competent to hear the dispute between the parties.
6. In continuation, 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 player’s
claim was lodged on 4 May 2020, whereas the club’s counterclaim was lodged on 25 June 2020, the
March 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to
the matter at hand as to the substance.
7. 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.
8. Having said that, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the parties concluded an
employment contract valid as from 20 August 2019 until 31 May 2020, pursuant to which the club
undertook to pay he player the following amounts:
USD 5,000 payable “after month after we receive the [ITC] and pass medical check up and
Technical and completing the registration in the Omani Football Association”;
USD 3,000 as monthly salary.
9. On 4 May 2020, the player terminated the contract invoking a just cause in light of the outstanding
remuneration in the total amount of USD 15,950 at the time of termination of the contract.
10. The player maintained that, prior to terminating the contract, he had put the club in default on two
occasions, i.e. on 1 April 2020 and 17 April 2020 as the club remained in default of the balance of
the sign-on fee (USD 3,440) per clause 3 of the contract, as well as the balance of the December 2019
salary (USD 510) and the monthly salaries from January through April 2020 (USD 12,000) per clause
4 of the contract.
11. Referring to the exchange of correspondence between the parties on 4 April 2020 (cf. par. I.15. and
16. above), the player underlined that clause 2 of the contract is null and void as “the validity of an
employment contract cannot be made subject to a medical (Article 18.4 RSTP) or the execution of
(administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited to, the registration procedure in connection with
the international transfer of [the player], which were of the sole responsibility of [the club] and on
which the player had no influence”. In this regard, the player maintained that he cannot be blamed
for the fact that his registration was delayed due to the fact that his former club, Nogoom El
Mostakbal, had objected to the issuance of his ITC. In fact, the DRC had confirmed, in the matter 19-
01466, that he had terminated his contract with the latter club with just cause.
12. Equally, the player wished to underline that the club’s debt dated back to December 2019, which was
prior to the Covid-19 pandemic; thus, any arguments from the club in this respect to justify the nonpayment
of his remuneration must be rejected.
13. The club, for its part, denied all allegations of the player and lodged a counter-claim against him.
14. According to the club, the player had misled them since, when signing the contract, he still had a
contract with Nogoom El Mostakbal. This delayed his registration with the club until FIFA allowed a
provisional registration. In this respect, the club invoked clause 2 of the contract, arguing that the
contract was suspended until receipt of the player’s ITC.
15. According to the club, the player’s delayed registration caused harm to the club as the player missed
three official matches in the national league season as well as several trainings. Thus, the club deems
that it is entitled to deduct some fines in the total amount of USD 22,500 from any amounts due to
the player until 24 March 2020 in light of the player’s breaches of the contract.
16. In addition, the club explained that it had to pay the player’s rent since the latter allegedly never paid
his house rent since September 2019.
17. With respect to the outstanding remuneration, the club referred to the decision of the Omani
Government, according to which “all professional sporting activities and facilities have been
suspended and closed throughout the country, up to today” due to the COVID-19
pandemic. Furthermore, the club submitted a decision issued by the Oman Football Association which
stated that “clubs are not liable to pay players’ and staff salaries starting from 14th March 2020 until
training sessions start in preparation for the remaining rounds of season 2019-2020”.
18. In conclusion, the club stated that by 4 April 2020, the player would have been entitled to a total
amount of USD 21,000 and that the club already paid USD 11,050 and that the “amounts of the
violations fees” corresponded to USD 22,500. Consequently, “at the day of the first claimant
notification he was owed the defendant an amount of USD 12,550, not a creditor”.
19. Therefore, the club deems that the player owes them the amount of USD 20,550, calculated as
follows:
“USD 21,000 – (USD11,050 + USD22,500 + USD3000) = USD 15,550” plus legal fees in the
amount of USD 5,000.
20. With respect to the club’s counterclaim, the player strongly denied having committed any breach of
contract and argued that he had never been notified of and complaint or any disciplinary proceedings
against him, where his right to be heard would have been respected.
21. Furthermore, the player argued that the club was not entitled to deduct any amounts to his salary
and that clause 13 of the contract “is unilateral and of a potestative nature, as it appears to grant an
arbitrary capacity to the Respondent to deduct the Claimant’s salary”.
22. With regard to the first two matches which he missed, the player highlighted that he “was
provisionally registered with the Respondent through a FIFA decision on 26 September 2019, which
was the Respondent’s obligations” and therefore, he cannot be sanctioned for his “justifiable absence
from the matches player on 15 and 21 September 2019”.
23. In addition, the player stressed that he was not absent from any training sessions as claimed by the
club and that the club did not provide any evidence for such statements.
24. With respect to the “house rent” the player argued that the club failed to “quantify its claim” and
that such claim is therefore “unsubstantiated and groundless”.
25. The members of the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the
diverging position of the parties, was to determine as to whether the player had had just cause to
terminate the contract on 4 May 2020. The Chamber also underlined that, subsequently, it would be
necessary to determine the consequences of the early termination of the contractual relation.
26. The Chamber, first of all, wished to highlight that the player had terminated the contract on unilateral
on 4 May 2020 due to the fact that the club owed him outstanding remuneration in the total amount
of USD 15,950.
27. The club requests the Chamber to offset the outstanding amounts with the amounts of the fine which
were imposed on the player in the total amount of USD 22,500. In this regard, the Chamber, referring
to the principle of burden of proof mentioned in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, found that
the club had not adduced any evidence of the alleged violations which the club had invoked, nor did
the club provide any proof that the player was duly notified of such violations or of any disciplinary
proceedings against him. Consequently, the Chamber held that such fines cannot be taken into
account in the assessment of the present matter. In particular, and referring to its well-established
jurisprudence in this regard, the DRC underlined that the imposition of fines on the player cannot
serve as a means to offset any outstanding remuneration against him.
28. With respect to the club’s allegations that the player was absent from three matches at the start of
the season, the DRC acknowledged that the player had confirmed being absent from two matches
out of three, on 15 and 21 September 2019. These absences were undoubtedly due to the fact that
the player was not yet registered with the club at the time, since his former club had objected to the
issuance of his ITC in favour of the club. The Single Judge of the PSC issued a decision with respect
to the player’s provisional registration with the club only on 26 September 2019, thus making it
impossible for the player to attend these two matches.
29. The Chamber, moreover, unanimously held that the player could not be blamed for not having been
registered at an earlier date, as registration matters are outside a player’s control. Indeed, referring to
its well-established jurisprudence, the Chamber pointed out that an employment contract cannot be
made subject to the player’s registration and therefore the club cannot argue that the contract was
suspended pending the player’s provisional registration.
30. With respect to the alleged costs which the club had to incur on behalf of the player for the payment
of his rent since September 2019, the DRC could not find evidence on file that such costs had
effectively been incurred nor of the precise amount of such costs. The Chamber must therefore reject
the club’s argument in this respect.
31. In continuation and with regard to the club’s argumentation in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the Chamber referred to the COVID-19 Guidelines issued by FIFA, 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 at ensuring that any response is harmonised in
the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA the FIFA COVID-19 FAQs, which provide
clarification about the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the
COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
32. Analysing the concept of a situation of force majeure, the members of the Chamber noted that, based
on the contents of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, FIFA did not declare
that the COVID-19 outbreak was a force majeure situation in any specific country or territory, or that
any specific employment or transfer agreement was impacted by the concept of force majeure.
33. In other words, in any given dispute, it is for a party invoking force majeure to establish the existence
of said event under the applicable law/rules as well as the consequences that derive in connection
thereto. The analysis of whether a situation of force majeure existed has to be considered on a caseby-
case basis, taking into account all the relevant circumstances.
34. Furthermore, the deciding body recalled that the aforementioned COVID-19 documents issued by
FIFA - as per the explicit wording of FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19
Guidelines - are only applicable to “unilateral variations to existing employment agreements”.
Therefore, except where a termination of a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as
a result of COVID-19 (in which case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the
guidelines), said guidelines do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing employment
agreements. The members of the Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes that are
presented before the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of a contract, the FIFA
Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber, shall apply. The Chamber noted
that, in the present case, there was no variation of the contract prior to its termination. The guidelines
are therefore inapplicable and only the FIFA Regulations and the jurisprudence of the Chamber will
apply.
35. Following these general observations, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to outline
that it remained uncontested that the club had not fulfilled its financial obligations set forth in the
contract and that it failed to pay to the player part of the sign-on fee as well as the balance of the
December 2019 salary and the monthly salaries from January to April 2020. In this regard, the DRC
remarked that a substantial part of these amounts had fallen due before the outbreak of the COVID-
19 pandemic.
36. Bearing in mind the above considerations, the DRC concluded that the club had not provided any
valid justification for the non-payment of the amounts that were outstanding at the time of the
premature termination of the contract by the player.
37. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that the player had unilaterally terminated the contract on 4
May 2020, after he had put the club in default on two occasions and granted a deadline of 15 days
for the club to comply with its financial obligations. In this respect, reference was made to art. 14bis
par. 1 of the Regulations, which, inter alia, stipulates that, in the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just
cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has
granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
38. The DRC concurred that these requirements were satisfied in the matter at hand. Consequently, the
Chamber decided that the player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship
on 4 May 2020 based on art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations. Consequently, the club is to be held
liable for the respective consequences.
39. First of all, the Chamber established that the club’s counter-claim is rejected.
40. Then, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations towards the player in
accordance with the contract up until the date of termination of the contract in accordance with the
general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda.
41. On this basis the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the salaries that were
outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. the amount of USD 15,950, corresponding to the
following
USD 3,440 as the unpaid part of the sign-on fee;
USD 510 as the unpaid part of the December 2019 salary;
USD 3,000 as the salary for January 2020;
USD 3,000 as the salary for February 2020;
USD 3,000 as the salary for March 2020;
USD 3,000 as the salary for April 2020.
42. In addition, taking into account the player’s claim as well as the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence
in this respect, it was decided to award the player interest of 5% p.a. as of the day following the
respective due dates of payment, as follows:
On USD 3,440 as from 27 October 2019 (31 days after the player’s registration) until the
date of effective payment;
On USD 510 as from 1 January 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 3,000 as from 1 February 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 3,000 as from 1 March 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 3,000 as from 1 April 2020 until the date of effective payment;
On USD 3,000 as from 1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment.
43. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
the player is entitled to receive from the club compensation for breach of contract in addition to any
outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
44. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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.
45. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the
pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand
agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In
this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the
employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
46. Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the club, the members of the
Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the player in accordance with the contract as
well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the player’s employment situation after
the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of the
termination of the employment contract on 4 May 2020, the contract would run until 31 May 2020,
this is, for another month. Consequently, taking into account the financial terms of the contract, the
Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the
player until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to USD 3,000 and that such amount shall serve
as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
47. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that following the early termination of the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute, the player was not able to find new employment. As a
result, the player was not able to mitigate his damages.
48. In view of all of the above, and referring to art. 17 par. 1.2 i. of the Regulations, the Chamber decided
that the club must pay the amount of USD 3,000 to the player as compensation for breach of contract
without just case, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as
compensation.
49. In addition, taking into account the player’s claim, it was decided to award the player interest of 5%
p.a. as from 4 May 2020 on the compensation.
50. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter stipulating that the player’s claim is
admissible and accepted.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the club does not pay
the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the club, 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.
54. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the
Regulations.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Michael Azekhumen Ejianreh, is admissible.
2. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is accepted.
3. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Saham Sports Club, is rejected.
4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the following
amounts:
- USD 15,950 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
o On USD 3,440 as from 27 October 2019 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 510 as from 1 January 2020 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 3,000 as from 1 February 2020 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 3,000 as from 1 March 2020 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 3,000 as from 1 April 2020 until the date of effective payment;
o On USD 3,000 as from 1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 3,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 4 May 2020 until the date of effective payment.
5. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to immediately and directly inform the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent/Counter-
Claimant must pay the due amount.
6. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in
accordance with this decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the
official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant/Counter-
Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the following
consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned
will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE 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