FIFA - Decisión disputa Toure 26052023

REF. FPSD-8883

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 26 May 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Malick Toure

COMPOSITION:

Frans de Weger (The Netherlands), Chairperson Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member

CLAIMANT:

Malick Toure, Mali Represented by Slim Boulasnem

RESPONDENT:

Ghazl El Mehalla, Egypt Represented by Sports Makers pg. 2

REF. FPSD-8883

I. Facts of the case

1. On 28 September 2021, the player (hereinafter: Claimant) and the club (hereinafter: Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid for 2 seasons, as from season 2021/2022 to season 2022/2023 (according to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) the seasons 2021/2022 started on 25 September 2021 and season 2022/2023 will come to an end on 30 June 2023).

2. According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the total gross

amount of USD 137,500, in the following manner: First season: total of USD 62,500, as follows: - USD 25,000 on 01.10.2021; - USD 1,250 on 01.11.2021; - USD 1,250 on 01.12.2021; - USD 1,250 on 01.01.2022; - USD 1,250 on 01.02.2022; - USD 1,250 on 01.03.2022; - USD 1,250 on 01.04.2022; - USD 1,250 on 01.05.2022; - USD 1,250 on 01.06.2022;

• USD 1,250 on 01.07.2022; - USD 1,250 on 01.08.2022; - USD 25,000 on 15.08.2022.

Second season: total of USD 75,000, as follows: - USD 31,250 on 01.10.2022; - USD 1,250 on 01.11.2022; - USD 1,250 on 01.12.2022; - USD 1,250 on 01.01.2023; - USD 1,250 on 01.02.2023; - USD 1,250 on 01.03.2023; - USD 1,250 on 01.04.2023; - USD 1,250 on 01.05.2023; - USD 1,250 on 01.06.2023; - USD 1,250 on 01.07.2023; - USD 1,250 on 01.08.2023; - USD 31,250 on 15.08.2023. pg. 3

REF. FPSD-8883

3. The “additional provision” of the contract stipulates that the player should also receive: - USD 2,000 per month as housing allowance (not stipulated if gross or net) - USD 2,000 per month as “food and transfer allowances” (not stipulated if gross or net) - “Allowances are paid for 10 months per season”.

4. Clause 4.6 stipulates that “The player should bear the taxes of this contract and other remuneration according to the law, the club shall deduct taxes from the player dues and transfer them to the taxes under his responsibility”.

5. No email address of the club is indicated in the contract (according to TMS, the club’s emails for communication are the following: info@gazlelmahallafc.com;

mohamedradwan51@gmail.com and alforssan@yahoo.com.

6. On 5 October 2022, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested the payment of USD 72,308 within 15 days, corresponding to his unpaid remuneration for the season 2021/2022, housing allowances, the food/transportation allowance for the month of September 2022 as well as the instalment due on 1 October 2022. The player also requested the club to stop its abusive behaviour and to clarify within the next 3 days its “intention towards Mr Malick”, as the new coach allegedly did not intend to keep him in the team. The club did not reply to such default notice (note: default notice sent by email to

mohamedradwan51@gmail.com; walidattar6@gmail.com (identified as the FA) and legal@fifproafrica.org).

7. On 18 October 2022, the club notified the Egyptian FA of the player’s late return, asking it to take the necessary actions against him. Inter alia, the club mentioned in its letter to the FA that “As the Club made an official letter to the Egyptian Football Association by paying $1,000 to bring the player to Egypt on 10/9/2022, and an official letter was obtained from the Egyptian Football Association addressed to the Ministry of Youth and Sports to complete and facilitate entry procedures to Egypt. The approval of the Ministry of Youth and Sports was also obtained to bring the player by sending an official letter to the General Department of Passports, Immigration and Nationality. After that, an entry visa to Egypt was obtained for player No. 7047 and it was sent to the player immediately, and the player has not arrived to date”.

8. On 26 October 2022, the player once again put the club in default, reinforcing the requests of his previous letter. The player also requested the club to “obtain all visas and permits required to ensure that the player can lawfully travel to, work and reside in Egypt within the next

5 days”. This letter also remained unanswered by the club (note: default notice sent by email to mohamedradwan51@gmail.com; walidattar6@gmail.com (identified as the FA), legal@fifproafrica.org and l.alves@fifpro.org).

9. On 2 November 2022, the player unilaterally terminated the contract in writing, making reference to his letters of 5 and 26 October 2022, pointing out that they remained unanswered and that no payment was made by the club. pg. 4

REF. FPSD-8883

10. Thus, in line with art. 14 and 14bis of the RSTP, the player terminated the contract with immediate effect and announced that he would lodge a claim at FIFA (note: termination sent by email to mohamedradwan51@gmail.com; walidattar6@gmail.com (identified as the FA) and legal@fifproafrica.org).

11. On 7 November 2022, the club sent the player a warning for “repeated unjustified absence”, in which it stated inter alia that it expected his return as soon as possible, as his absence was allegedly unjustified and not authorised. The club also reminded the player that this was not his first unjustified absence and requested him to return to the club within 48 hours, otherwise he would be “investigated and given the opportunity to get heard prior to applying any further penalties”.

12. As per the club, the player did not reply to this warning (note: letter allegedly sent by fax to the number +20227367817; the code +202, as per information found online, refers to a number in The Cairo, Egypt. The player’s email address and phone number are indicated in his previous employment contract, a copy of which was provided in the club’s reply).

13. On 8 November 2022, the club allegedly re-sent the player the abovementioned warning

via Whatsapp.

14. On 23 November 2022, the club sent the player a final warning as well as another letter to the Egyptian FA, requesting it to take the necessary measures against the player (letter allegedly sent by fax to the number +20227367817, as indicated above).

15. According to the information contained in the TMS, the player remained unemployed until today/during the relevant period.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

a. Position of the Claimant

16. On 12 January 2023, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA for breach of contract.

17. In his claim, the player argued that despite his spotless behaviour, the club failed to pay him his remuneration correctly as per the contract. In particular, the player claims to have received the following amounts from the club (total: USD 65,442): pg. 5

REF. FPSD-8883

18. Consequently, the Claimant understands that the following amounts remain outstanding: pg. 6

REF. FPSD-8883

19. The player explains that the club, at the end of the season, expressed its discontentment with his injury and at the beginning of the 2022/2023 season it informed the player that it wished to terminate his contract due to insufficient performance. (note: on file, a) medical examination of the player’s left thigh, dated 13.11.2021, showing inter alia a “subacute tear seen at the middle 1/3 of the rectus femoris muscle”, b) an undated MRI of the player’s left knee, and c) an exam of the player’s left thigh dated 10.10.2022 with the following conclusion “left biceps femoris muscle shows significant muscle fibrosis at the middle 1/3

(history of old tear)”).

20. As the player insisted that the club took his injury into account, the latter decided to put

him on trial, in order to decide whether he could remain at the club or not. The club however did not provide the player with a flight ticket to return to Egypt and he had to purchase it himself (on file, receipt dated 28.09.2022 from a travel agency in Paris, for a ticket from Bamako – Cairo – Bamako on 02.10.2022, return on 09.10.2022, in the amount of EUR 1,310). Furthermore, the player points out that the club never replied to his reminders or paid him his outstanding remuneration. In particular, he indicated that his monthly remuneration for season 2021/2022 amounted to USD 9,208, and that the club owed him the total amount of USD 66,448 at the time of termination, i.e. more than 7 months of salaries. Furthermore, he points out the club’s intention to let him go after his injury, which does not constitute a just cause. Thus, he claims to have had a just cause to terminate the contract unilaterally on 2 November 2022.

21. In view of the foregoing the player makes the following request for relief: Outstanding salaries (total. USD 57,699): - USD 1,250 as salary of October 2021, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 November 2021; - USD 1,250 as salary of November 2021, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1

December 2021; - USD 737 as salary of December 2021, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 January 2022; - USD 577 as salary of January 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 February 2022; - USD 577 as salary of February 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 March 2022; - USD 1217 as salary of March 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 April 2022;

• USD 622 as salary of April 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 May 2022; - USD 622 as salary of May 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 June 2022; - USD 1,250 as salary of June 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 July 2022; - USD 1,250 as salary of July 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 August 2022; - USD 17,097 as the instalment due on 15 August 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 15 August 2022; - USD 31,250 as the instalment due on 1 October 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 October 2022. pg. 7

REF. FPSD-8883

Outstanding allowances (total: USD 16,749): - USD 164 as food/transportation allowance for November 2021, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 November 2021; - USD 585 as food/transportation allowance for December 2021, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 December 2021; - USD 2,000 as accommodation allowance for July 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 July 2022; - USD 2,000 as food/transportation allowance for July 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 July 2022; - USD 2,000 as accommodation allowance for August 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 August 2022; - USD 2,000 as food/transportation allowance for August 2022, plus interest of 5%

p.a. as from 1 August 2022; - USD 2,000 as accommodation allowance for September 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2022; - USD 2,000 as food/transportation allowance for September 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2022; - USD 2,000 as accommodation allowance for October 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 October 2022; - USD 2,000 as food/transportation allowance for October 2022, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 October 2022; (Total outstanding: USD 74,448) Total residual value of the contract, i.e. USD 91,750, calculated as follows: - USD 43,750 as salaries; - USD 24,000 as accommodation allowances; - USD 24,000 as food allowances; Additional compensation - 6 monthly salaries, due for the abusive behaviour of the club; Sanctions against the club. b. Position of the Respondent

22. In its reply, the Respondent rejects the player’s claim and deems that the latter terminated the contract without just cause. pg. 8

REF. FPSD-8883

23. In particular, the club points out that it concluded an “apartment rent contract”, signed also by the player, by means of which he allegedly accepted that his accommodation would be provided in that manner (note: on file, a) lease agreement concluded between an agency and the club, for “house No. (1), Building No. (7), which is furnished, equipped and fully finished and facilities in the administration area owned by the First Party for the purpose of using the same as a residence for the Ghazl El-Mahalla Football Company”, valid as from 1 August 2021 to 31 July 2026; b) letter of the club to the agency dated 12 October 2021, requesting the

provision of 2 apartments; and c) inventory of items contained in “house No. (1), Building No. (7)” allegedly signed by the player).

24. According to the club, “After the end of the first season (2021-2022), the Player requested a vacation to return to his country. The Club approved this vacation conditionally on the player’s acceptance to return to the club at a later date (September 14, 2022) or a fine of 5000 EGP per day of delay shall be applied.” (note: letter of the club on file; the letter however does not make reference to a request of the player and does not indicate the contact details of the sender or the receiver) As per the club, the player returned to the club only on 2 October 2022, i.e. 17 days after the deadline granted. Consequently, the letter of 18 October 2022 a warning was sent to the Egyptian FA.

25. As per the club, the player was for the second time absent without authorisation. The club sent him the warning of 7 November 2022 by email (note: no email address indicated; only fax report enclosed), requesting his return within 48 hours, re-sent via Whastapp on 8

November 2022.

26. The club claims that only on 23 January 2023, when it received the present claim from FIFA, it found out that the player had terminated the contract unilaterally. The club further states that the player’s first default notice mentions different amounts than the ones requested via his claim, which allegedly shows his bad faith. The club claims not to have received the player’s default notices, as they were sent to the email address of a former employee

mohamedradwan51@gmail.com, instead of the club’s official email address ghazlelmahallafc@gmail.com.

27. In addition, the club points out to the fact that the contract stipulates that the amounts

payable to the player are gross and that it must “deduct taxes from the player's dues and transfer them to the taxes under the Club’s responsibility.” In this respect, it points out that Law 26/2020 of 5 July 20202 fixed a percentage of 25% of taxes, which was duly applied by the club when paying his remuneration. This percentage was deducted from the player’s remuneration and paid to the authorities by the club (note: on file, a) law 26/2020 which amends “Articles No. (8, 13, Item / 1, 87 bis) of the Income Tax Law promulgated by Law No. 91 of 2005”, stating that “The tax rate is as follows: […] more than 400,000 pounds – 25%”; a copy of law No. 91 of 2005 was not provided; b) “payment notice” issued by the National Bank of Egypt on 31 January 2023, stating the “payment of business tax” by the club in the amount of EGP 1,000,228; the statement indicates the existence of 7 foreign employees, to pg. 9 REF. FPSD-8883 which salaries in the amount of 1,646,527 is assigned; the player is not mentioned in the aforementioned document)

28. The club also mentions that additional “development taxes” are due as per Law 83 of 2020.

The percentage varies from 3% to 10% (note: on file, a translation of art. 2 clause 21 of the Law No. 83 of 2020, as per which “21.’ Purchase, selling, loaning, renewal, contracts or others contracts of Egyptian or foreign athletes, and contract for Egyptian or foreign technical and administration bodies and technical directors for any sporting discipline, according to the following: The amount of the annual value of the contract fee 3% one million pounds or less 4.5% more than one million pounds and up to two million pounds, […] ‘’). Furthermore, the club

insists that it bears the responsibility of deducting such amounts from the player’s salaries, as confirmed by the Egyptian tax authorities in reply to an inquiry of Zamalek SC (note: Free translation of the Tax authority letter in response to Zamalek SC’s inquiry on file, stating inter alia that “Zamalek Sporting Club has the obligation to collect the State financial development tax due on the contracts that are not registered according to the first article of clause (21) of the aforementioned law and remit it to the General Administration within 15 days as from the beginning of the month following the month on which the collection have taken place”).

29. According to the club, the aforementioned laws apply to the player’s contract, and the latter shall pay taxes in the amount of USD 1,875 for the 2021/2022 season (i.e. 3% of his contract value USD 62,500 USD, equivalent to EGP 977,500, as per the club) and USD 3,375 for the season 2022/2023 (i.e. 4.5% of his contract value USD 75,000, equivalent to EGP 1,173,000 as per the club). The club paid all due taxes correctly, but that was not taken into account by the player in his claim (note: on fie, a) receipt dated 24 January 2021 issued by the Egyptian FA, attesting the payment of EGP 29,250 by the club as “Documentation Fees of the Contract of Player: Malick Touré” and EGP 29,250 as “development fees” for the year 2021; b) receipt issued by the Egyptian FA on 19 September 2022, stating inter alia the total amount of EGP 109,012 / USD 5,625 as “documentation fees” and “development taxes” for the player for the year 2022).

30. The club also claims that “Throughout the entire duration of the contract, the Club always guaranteed meals (Annex – Meals ‘preparation Contract, Meals Lists for Players) to the Player

and provided him with an equipped apartment to use as a home. Although the player claimed that the club owed him amounts for housing and food allowances.”

31. Based on the foregoing, the club considers that the player terminated his contract without just cause, since the amount due to him for season 2021/2022 is USD 45,000 net (i.e. USD 62,500 – 25% income taxes – 3% “taxes for developing the state’s financial resources”) and for the first instalment due for season 2022/2023 is USD 20,062.5 (i.e. USD 31,250 – 25% income taxes – 3% “taxes for developing the state’s financial resources”). The total amount payable to him is thus USD 65,062. As per the club, “The Player has received from the Club a total amount of 65,502$, which is also undisputed and confirmed by the Player in his Claim, hence it becomes unnecessary to enclose the proof of payment of those instalments”. pg. 10

REF. FPSD-8883

32. The club understands that the food/transportation and housing allowances should not be taken into account for the assessment of the just cause. Therefore, the player terminated the contact without just cause on 2 November 2022.

33. As to the food/transportation allowances, the club understands that even if FIFA decides to take them into account, the due taxes must also be applied on them. The housing allowances are anyways not due, as they were replaced by the rent contract, allegedly accepted by the player. In particular, no allowances at all are due for the month of September 2022, as the player was not present in Egypt, and as the allowances are only paid 10 times per season. Finally, the club claims that the player failed to mitigate his damages, as he allegedly received an offer from the Egyptian club Haras Al Hodood, via the club, and did not reply to it.

34. In view of the above, the club makes the following request for relief:

“1. To accept the Club’s present Response

2. To rule that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause and not entitled to any entitlements or compensations

3. Alternatively, if the FIFA ruled that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause, he shall not be entitlted to any compensation

4. Alternatively, if the FIFA ruled that the Player is entitled to any compensation, it shall be significantly mitigated for his failure to mitigate his damages.”

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

35. 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 presented to FIFA on 12 January 2023 and submitted for decision on 26 May 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.

36. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber 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 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from Mali and a club from Egypt. pg. 11

REF. FPSD-8883

37. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2023 edition) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 12 January 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

38. The Chamber 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 Chamber stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).

c. Merits of the dispute

39. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. 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.

1. Main legal discussion and considerations

40. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter and noted that, whereas the Claimant argues having terminated the contract with just cause due to outstanding remuneration, the Respondent argued that no amount was due to the player at the time of termination and, thus, that the player terminated the contract without just cause.

41. In particular, the DRC noted that the club raises the following main arguments: - Income and development taxes were to be applied on the player’s remuneration; - Food/transportation allowances are not to be considered when calculating the amount due on the date of termination; - Housing allowances were replaced by the conclusion of a rent contract, accepted by the player; - The club never received the player’s default notices or the termination letter, as they were sent to the email address of a former employee;

• The player was absent from the club without authorisation. pg. 12

REF. FPSD-8883

42. The above being recalled, the Chamber pointed out that, in spite of the club’s allegation that it did not receive the player’s termination letter, the date of the termination letter must be considered as the termination date, as it clearly states the player’s intention to put an end to the contract as from that date and as no other termination document is on file.

Thus, the Chamber determined that the player terminated the contract on 2 November 2022.

43. In this context, the DRC deemed it vital to formulate the following question: did the player terminate the contract with just cause on 2 November 2022?

44. In order to reply to such question, the Chamber underscored that the amount of outstanding remuneration due to the player on 2 November 2022 (if any) must be established. With this purpose, the DRC analysed every argument of the club:

A. Income and development taxes were to be applied on the player’s remuneration:

45. In this regard, the Chamber observed that, even though the contract indeed stipulates that the salaries due to the player are gross (no specification as to gross or net regarding the allowances) and that the cub should deduct taxes from the player’s dues, the club did not properly justify the deductions allegedly made to the player’s salaries or the effective payment of the relevant taxes. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the club only provided a copy of law 26/2020, which is a short amendment to Articles No. (8, 13, Item / 1, 87 bis) of the Income Tax Law promulgated by Law No. 91 of 2005.

46. The full text of the original law, however, was not provided and the DRC highlighted that it cannot be inferred from the short amendment that 25% are to be deducted from the player’s income. Furthermore, just a short extract of Law 83 of 2020, on “development

taxes” ranging between 3 and 10%, was provided, explained the Chamber, which prevents the DRC to conclude that this amount was indeed to be applied over the player’s remuneration.

47. In addition, the documentation provided by the club allegedly confirming the payment of taxes on behalf of the player either does not contain a specific amount paid for the player for the 2021 season or establishes an amount payable for the total of season 2022, whereas the contract was terminated on 2 November 2022.

48. Moreover, the Chamber stated that the reply of the FA to an alleged inquiry submitted by Zamalek SC does not prove the payment of the taxes by the club, nor the amount deductible from the player’s remuneration.

49. In conclusion, the Chamber determined that the club failed to provide consistent legal basis for the deduction of certain percentages from the player’s salary and, consequently, this first argument cannot be upheld. pg. 13

REF. FPSD-8883

B. Food/transportation allowances are not to be considered when calculating the amount due

on the date of termination:

50. No legal or reasonable explanation was provided by the club for such argumentation; thus, it cannot be upheld – concluded the Chamber.

C. Housing allowances were replaced by the conclusion of a rent contract, accepted by the

player:

51. In this regard, the DRC noted that the club only provided a copy of a lease agreement concluded between it and an agency, which does not mention the player and does not match the duration of the contract. In addition, the DRC observed that the only document signed by the player is an inventory of the items contained in a specific house and that no evidence that the player waived his contractual right to received USD 2,000 per month (10x per season) as accommodation allowance was provided.

52. Thus, the DRC concluded that these amounts are still due to the player.

D. The club never received the player’s default notices or the termination letter, as they were

sent to the email address of a former employee:

53. The Chamber stressed that the club’s arguments in this regard are not satisfactorily substantiated: the player sent his default notices to several email addresses, namely

mohamedradwan51@gmail.com (identified as the club), walidattar6@gmail.com (identified as the FA), legal@fifproafrica.org (Fifpro Africa) and l.alves@fifpro.org (Fifpro).

54. The club does not deny that the mohamedradwan51@gmail.com was indeed the email address of an employee of the club, but merely alleges that such employee is no longer working for the club. The employment contract does contain any contact detail of the club.

In view of the aforesaid, the DRC underscored that the club did not act diligently by not informing the player of the official communication channels and by failing to deactivate the email of its former employee and forwarding any messages to a new email.

55. What is more, the Chamber wished to point out that the e-mail address

mohamedradwan51@gmail.com still appears as valid for communication purposes with the club as per the information displayed in the TMS. The player’s message was, furthermore, sent to other email addresses, including that of the FA, with which the club was allegedly in constant contact.

56. Thus, the DRC unanimously concluded that the player could, in good faith, believe that the letters were received and the club failed to ensure that the player could communicate with it. pg. 14

REF. FPSD-8883

E. The player was absent from the club without authorisation.

57. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the club did not prove that the player was given permission to leave after the end of the season and requested him to return on 14 October 2022, as the alleged authorization on file does not make reference to any request of the player and does not indicate the contact details of the sender or receiver.

58. Also, the club’s reminder of 18 October 2022, addressed to the player and warning him of his allegedly unauthorised absence for 17 days, was sent to the FA only (no evidence of dispatch enclosed, though). The letters sent by the club to the player were all sent to the same fax number, namely +20227367817, which appears to be a number in The Cairo.

Nonetheless, the club had the player’s phone number and email address, as displayed in the player’s previous contract, provided by the club itself in its reply.

59. The player, on his part, enclosed medical exams attesting an injury, which is the reason he invokes for being absent. The injury is not contested by the club.

60. Bearing in mind the documentation on file, the Chamber concluded that it cannot in good faith uphold the club’s arguments that it did not receive the player’s remin