FIFA - Decisión disputa Gbegnon Amoussou 21062023

REF. FPSD-9705

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 21 June 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Simon Crédo Gbegnon Amoussou BY: Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Single Judge

CLAIMANT: Simon Crédo Gbegnon Amoussou, France Represented by Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels

RESPONDENT:

FC Dinamo Tbilisi, Georgia pg. 2

REF. FPSD-9705

I. Facts of the case

1. On 28 January 2020, the French player, Simon Crédo Gbegnon Amoussou (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) and the Georgian club, Football Dinamo Tbilisi (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 28 July 2022.

2. Clause 13.3 of the contract reads as follows: “If Club becomes winner of the Erovnuli Liga of Georgia, the Footballer will receive a one-time bonus in amount of 10 000 (Ten thousand) EUR equivalent in GEL – NET without income tax

(according to the official exchange rate of the National Bank of Georgia existing on the day of payment)”.

3. The 2022 “Erovnuli Liga of Georgia” started on 25 February 2022 and ended on 3 December

2022.

4. At the end of 2022, the club won the 2022 championship “Erovnuli Liga of Georgia”.

5. By correspondence dated 4 January 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of EUR 10,000 corresponding the 2022 bonus; setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.

6. On 24 January 2023, the club replied to the player stating that he is not entitled to the 2022

bonus considering that (i) the contract expired in July 2022 and at that moment, the club was 9 points behind the 1st place; and (ii) the club won the 2022 championship on 3 December 2022.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

a. Position of the Claimant

7. On 22 March 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the amount of EUR 10,000 corresponding to the 2022 bonus in line with clause 13.3 of the contract. The Claimant indicated that he is entitled to said bonus as the club at the end of the 2022 season became winner of the championship “Erovnuli Liga of Georgia”.

8. The Claimant further asked to be awarded interest of 5% per annum as from 1 January 2023 and that the Respondent be ordered to pay legal costs.

9. Finally, the Claimant requested to apply sanctions in line with art. 12 bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). pg. 3

REF. FPSD-9705

b. Position of the Respondent

10. In its reply, the Respondent requested FIFA to reject the claim.

11. The Club considered that the Claimant is not eligible to receive 2022 bonus considering that: (i) the contract expired on its term and he was released from all obligations on 28 July 2022; (ii) the Georgian championship started on 25 February 2022 and ended on 3

December 2022, and when the contract expired, the club was in the middle of the championship; and (iii) clause 13.3 of the contract “would apply only to the obligation arising during the term of the contract and not to the result after its termination. In particular, the player was entitled to receive the championship bonus of 2020, as the club became champion of 2020 season, wich the club has fully paid to the player and has no depts to him. In 2021, the

club did not become the champion of Erovnuli Liga and July 28, 2022, just in the middle of the championship the employment contract was expired”.

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

12. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 22 March 2023 and submitted for decision on 21 June 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal

(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

13. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the RSTP (May 2023 edition), the Single Judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from France and a club from Georgia.

14. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the RSTP (May 2023 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 March 2023, the October 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

b. Burden of proof pg. 4

REF. FPSD-9705

15. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13

par. 5 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. Likewise, the Single Judge stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the TMS (Transfer Matching System). c. Merits of the dispute

16. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

1. Main legal discussion and considerations

17. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the lawfulness of the non-payment of the conditional bonus of EUR 10,000 in line with clause 13.3 of the contract.

18. In brief, while the Claimant considered that he is entitled to the bonus considering that the Club won the 2022 championship “Erovnuli Liga of Georgia”. The Respondent considered that the Claimant is not entitled to that amount considering that the contract expired prior the club won said championship.

19. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on the documentation on file and the evidence provided whether the player was entitled to the conditional bonus in accordance with clause 13.3 of the contract.

20. In this context, the Single Judge mentioned that the following facts: (i) the contract expired on 28 July 2022; (ii) the contract terminated on its term, i.e., it was not early terminated; and (iii) the Club won the 2022 championship “Erovnuli Liga of Georgia” after the contract

ended.

21. Subsequently, the Single Judge recalled the content of clause 13.3: “If Club becomes winner of the Erovnuli Liga of Georgia, the Footballer will receive a one-time bonus in amount of 10 000 (Ten thousand) EUR equivalent in GEL – NET without income tax (according to the official exchange rate of the National Bank of Georgia existing on the day of payment)” (emphasis added). pg. 5

REF. FPSD-9705

22. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge stressed at the moment the contract expired, i.e., 28 July 2022, the condition of clause 13.3 of the contract was not triggered and concluded that the player is not entitled to said bonus as the triggering condition only occurred after the contract ended; therefore, his claim lacked contractual basis. Accordingly, the Single Judge found that the claim must be entirely rejected.

d. Costs

23. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

24. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.

25. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties. pg. 6

REF. FPSD-9705

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Simon Crédo Gbegnon Amoussou, is rejected.

2. This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal: Emilio García Silvero Chief Legal & Compliance Officer pg. 7

REF. FPSD-9705

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:

According to article 57 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 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football

Tribunal).

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 pg. 8