FIFA - Resolución Vatajelu_25072024

REF. FPSD-14222

Page 2 Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 25 July 2024 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Bodgan Ilie Vatajelu

COMPOSITION :

Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), member Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), member

CLAIMANT:

Bodgan Ilie Vatajelu, Romania Represented by Sabin Liviu Gherdan

RESPONDENT:

Abha, Saudi ArabiaREF. FPSD-14222 Page 3

I. Facts of the case

1. On 15 June 2023, the Romanian player Bodgan Ilie Vatajelu (hereinafter, the Claimant or the Player) and the Romanian club Universitatea Craiova agreed on the termination of their employment relationship.

2. Also on 15 June 2023, the Saudi club Abha (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) received a WhatsApp mess age from Mr Mohamed Ali Bouraoui (hereinafter, Mr Bouraoui ), acting as a legal representative on behalf of the Player’s agent, Mr Cornel Teodorescu (hereinafter, Mr Teodorescu), attaching a mandate of the Player on behalf of Mr Teodorescu and forwarding a link to the specialized web Transfermarkt.

3. On 16 June 2023, the sporting director of the Saudi club Abha (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club), Mr Mohamed Abu Hathra (hereinafter, Mr Hathra) sent a WhatsApp message to the alleged agent of the Player, Mr Akram, attaching the so-called “Offer Bodgan” (hereinafter, the Offer).

4. In accordance with the Offer:

“Dear M. Bodgan,

We hope this letter finds you well. We are delighted to inform you that our club, Abha FC, is highly

4. In accordance with the Offer:

“Dear M. Bodgan,

We hope this letter finds you well. We are delighted to inform you that our club, Abha FC, is highly interested in securing your services as a free agent. We would like to present you with the following proposal:

1. Proposal details:

Term: one (1) year plus an option of one more option season at the discretion of the club.

Annual salary: USD 500,000

2. Additional Benefits:

Transportation and accommodation provided by the club.

Aircraft tickets: two (2) economic flight tickets per season for you and the same for your spouse preseason.

Match-Win-Bonus as per our internal rules.

Compensation for breach: 2 monthly salary.

Please note that this proposal is subject to the following cumulative conditions:

• Providing a release letter or proof of the end of your contract with your former club (free agent). • Passing a medical examination conducted by our club’s medical staff in Saudi Arabia, and • Signing an employment contract with Abha FC.

We would like to emphasize that this proposal is not a binding employment offer, Abha FC reserves the right to withdraw from the deal without legal co nsequences if any of the aforementioned conditions are not met.REF. FPSD-14222 Page 4

We kindly request that you respond to this proposal within 48 hours of receiving this letter, indicating your acceptance or rejection. If you choose to accept our proposal, we will proceed with the necessary arrangements to finalize the transfer and employment process ”.

5. Also on 16 June 2023, Mr Akram reverted via WhatsApp a signed copy of the Offer to the Club.

6. On the same day , the Player and Mr Akram concluded the so -called “Intermediation Agreement”, by way of which the Player undertook to pay a commission to Mr Akram after the latter succeeded in the negotiations to conclude a contract with the Respondent.

6. On the same day , the Player and Mr Akram concluded the so -called “Intermediation Agreement”, by way of which the Player undertook to pay a commission to Mr Akram after the latter succeeded in the negotiations to conclude a contract with the Respondent.

7. On 18 June 2024, the Club sent an email to Mr Teodorescu by way of w hich it communicated him the withdrawal of the Offer based on the following reasons:

“We hope this message finds you well. We regret to inform you that we must withdraw our non -binding employment offer that was extended to you for the position with Abha F C. This notification comes after the expiration of the deadline, which occurred yesterday.

As per the conditions outlined in our initial offer, we required the receipt of proof regarding the end of your last contract with your former club within the speci fied deadline. Unfortunately, we did not receive the necessary documentation through the official means before the expiration of the deadline.

Due to the expiration of the deadline without receipt of the required proof, we are unable to proceed with the employment offer at this time.

(…) Should there be any change in circumstances or if you are able to provide the required proof through the official means at a later date, we would be open to reconsidering our offer ”.

8. On 19 June 2023, Mr Bouraoui replied to the above email in the following terms:

“I inform you that I had not received the offer referred to in your attached letter, by official means…

We have received the offer from Akram by WhatsApp. As I am sure you are that I am authorised by the official agent of the player.

If you are still interested by the above mentioned player we are ready to provide you all needed information upon receipt of an offer by official means”.

9. On 20 June 2023, Mr Bouraoui sent another email to the Club stating, inter alia, the following:

“I apologize for the delay in responding to your offer regarding the player, Mr Bodgan Ilie Vatajelu. Please

information upon receipt of an offer by official means”.

9. On 20 June 2023, Mr Bouraoui sent another email to the Club stating, inter alia, the following:

“I apologize for the delay in responding to your offer regarding the player, Mr Bodgan Ilie Vatajelu. Please accept my apologies for not meeting the deadline.REF. FPSD-14222 Page 5

Firstly, I want to clarify that Mr Akram is not the official agent of the player. The official representative of the player exclusively in Saudi Arabia is [Mr Teodorescu]. Please direct any future communications or inquiries regarding the player through [Mr Teodorescu].

Furthermore, I have attached the proof of the player’s release letter, which confirms his status as a free player. The letter, signed by his former club on June 16, 2023, serves as evidence of his availability for transfer.

If your club is interested in pursuing the opportunity of his transfer, I as sure you that we are open to discussing a new offer. Please let us know your intentions and any updated proposals you may have ”.

10. On 23 June 2023, Mr Hathra replied via WhatsApp to a previous message from the Player informing

about the following:

“Hello you are welcome Mr. Vatajelu. Sorry to answer late. Yes bro the committee decided to stop to sign you because we have 2 seats for only for the foreign players and we need striker and central defender now for that we decided to stop negotiation with your agent. And we wish all the best for you in the future”.

11. On the same day, the Player replied “Thank you for your answer Mr. Mohamed. Wish you all the best”.

12. Also on 23 June 2023, the Player and the Romanian club Universitatea Cluj concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Second Contract ), valid as from 26 June 2023 until 31 May 2025.

13. According to Clause 4 of the Second Contract, the Player would receive a monthly salary of

employment contract (hereinafter, the Second Contract ), valid as from 26 June 2023 until 31 May 2025.

13. According to Clause 4 of the Second Contract, the Player would receive a monthly salary of EUR 12,500 net as from 26 June 2023 to 31 M ay 2024, and a monthly remuneration of EUR 13,000 net as from 1 June 2024 until 31 May 2025.

14. According to the same Clause of the Second Contract, the Player was also entitled to receive a bonus in the amount of EUR 25,000 net in the following instalments:

• EUR 10,000 on 30 June 2023; • EUR 7,500 on 20 July 2023; and • EUR 7,500 on 15 August 2023.

15. On 20 October 2023, the Player put the Respondent in default informing, inter alia, that:

“Despite reaching an agreement between the Parties, your Club did not fulfil its obligations, which resulted in the Player incurring a 500.000 USD prejudice that your club will have to cover ”.

16. The Player granted a deadline of three days to the Club to proceed with the payment of the abovementioned amount.REF. FPSD-14222

Page 6

17. On 22 October 2023, the Club replied to the Player rejecting his allegations, informing him essentially

(i) that the Offer did not constitute an employment contract, (ii) that no acceptance of the Offer was received through official channels within the deadline provided in the Offer, (iii) that on 19 June 2023 the Club informed about the withdrawal of the Offer, (iv) that the conditions provided in the Offer were not met, and (v) that the Player’s immediate signing with Universitatea Cluj reinforces the Club’s stance that the Offer was never intended as a binding employment contract.

18. On 23 February 2024, the Player and Universitatea Cluj mutually terminated their employment contract.

were not met, and (v) that the Player’s immediate signing with Universitatea Cluj reinforces the Club’s stance that the Offer was never intended as a binding employment contract.

18. On 23 February 2024, the Player and Universitatea Cluj mutually terminated their employment contract.

19. On 24 February 2024, the Player and the Kazakhstani club Aktobe concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Third Contract), valid until 31 December 2025.

20. According to Clause 3 of the Third Contract, the Player is entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of KZT 8,035,000 net through its entire duration.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

3. On 27 March 2024, the Player lodged the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the Parties is detailed in continuation.

a. Position of the Claimant

4. According to the Player, the Offer included all the essentialia negotii to be considered as a valid and binding employment contract. In particular, the Claimant pointed out that the name of the parties, the object, the duration of the employment relationship, the salary and the signature of both parties are included in the Offer.

5. The Player submitted that despite the conclusion of the Offer, the Club never fulfilled its obligations, as it never provided him with flight tickets to Abha nor conducted the medical examination.

6. The Player argued that a couple of days after the employment contract was concluded, the Club informed him verbally that they were no longer interested in his services.

7. The Claimant stressed that the only action that h e had to undertake in accordance with the Offer was to send the signed proposal within 48 hours, which he allegedly did. The Player also argued that “Afterwards, the Respondent has expressly agreed to the obligation to proceed with the necessary arrangements to finalize the transfer and employment process ”. In this respect, the Player argued it was the Club’s obligation to set a date for the medical examination and to draft the employment

“Afterwards, the Respondent has expressly agreed to the obligation to proceed with the necessary arrangements to finalize the transfer and employment process ”. In this respect, the Player argued it was the Club’s obligation to set a date for the medical examination and to draft the employment contract. The Player considered the Club should be estopped from thes e two arguments.

8. The Player referred to the jurisprudence of the Chamber in accordance with which the validity of an employment contract cannot be made subject to a successful medical examination, as well as to theREF. FPSD-14222

Page 7

jurisprudence according to which the club has the obligation to register the player and proceed with all the paperwork necessary for a contractual relationship.

9. Based on the above, the Player considered that the contractual relationship started on 16 June 2023 when he accepted the Offer and demonstrated to the Club that he was a free agent.

10. According to the Player, “[T]he parties had entered a valid and binding employment contract terminated unlawfully by the Respondent. As a result, we consider that the Claimant is entitled to the whole amount of the contract based on the Club’s fault for non-execution”.

11. The Player acknowledged his obligation to mitigate his damages, and claimed that the Club should be held liable to pay USD 324,258.94 as compensation for breach of contract, after mitiga ting his damages with the Second Contract and the Third Contract.

12. Subsidiarily, the Player argued he is entitled to receive USD 100,000 as per the compensation for breach of contract provided in the Offer (i.e., two monthly salaries of USD 50,000).

13. The Player requested the following relief:

(a) To order FOTBAL CLUB ABHA to pay BODGAN ILIE VATAJELU the total amount of 324.258,94 USD representing payment for the 2023/2024 season;

(b) In subsidiary, to order FOTBAL CLUB ABHA to pay BODGAN ILIE VATAJELU the amount of 100.000

representing payment for the 2023/2024 season;

(b) In subsidiary, to order FOTBAL CLUB ABHA to pay BODGAN ILIE VATAJELU the amount of 100.000 USD representing compensation for the breach of the employment contract;

(c) To order FOTBAL CLUB ABHA to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

b. Position of the Respondent

14. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent submitted that the Offer was sent to the Player by Mr Akram, agent of the head coach Mr Czeslaw Michniewicz, without official authorization from the Club.

15. The Club alleged that Mr Akram sent the Offer directly to the Player when it had to be sent to his agent, Mr Teodorescu. A ccordingly, the Club allegedly instructed Mr Akram to cease any negotiations and directed him to adhere to the formal and legal procedures with authorized personnel for managing contractual matters.

16. The Respondent asserted that the signed copy of the Offe r was sent on 16 June 2023, without the knowledge of the Club’s and the Player’s exclusive authorized representatives.

17. The Club denied having received any unconditional acceptance of the Offer. Instead, it submitted that the Player proposed several modifi cations to the initial Offer, and that the Club was awaiting verification of his injury and recovery reports, as well as proof of the fact that he was indeed a free agent.REF. FPSD-14222

Page 8

18. The Respondent relied on press articles that, on 16 June 2023, informed that the P layer was still considering other offers and had not finalized his negotiations with the Club. According to the Club, that the Player was considering other offers is also substantiated by the fact that on 23 June 2023

(i.e., a few days after the withdrawal of the Offer) he concluded the Second Contract.

19. The Club also asserted that on 20 October 2023, only four days after the Club terminated the

that the Player was considering other offers is also substantiated by the fact that on 23 June 2023 (i.e., a few days after the withdrawal of the Offer) he concluded the Second Contract.

19. The Club also asserted that on 20 October 2023, only four days after the Club terminated the contract of its head coach and technical staff, the Player “issued a default notice in annex 6 of the claim and submitted a previously undisclosed signed proposal to Abha Club ”.

20. The Club denied having ended the Offer verbally, as it is demonstrated by the emails sent to the Player. The Club rather withdrawn the Offer for lack of meeting the agreed conditions within the provided deadline.

21. Regarding the evidence provided by the Player, the Club argued that from the screenshot provided the PDF document attached is not visible, “ raising questions about its validity and evidential value as proof of acceptance”. Also, that there is no evidence as to the delivery of the termination agreement concluded with Universitatea Craiova. The Club also argued that Mr Akram is a third party without any official authority or recognized capacity.

22. The Respondent subm itted that the Player obtained the termination agreement on 19 June 2023, but only provided it to the Club on 20 June 2023, “ well past the crucial decision -making deadline”. In this respect, “If Vatajelu had been genuinely interested in pursuing the opport unity with Abha, he could have easily provided a copy if his contract immediately after obtaining his release on June 19, 2023 ”.

23. The Respondent alleged that the Player had failed to substantiate his allegations, in particular, that a binding contract was agreed and that he proved his status of free agent. Also, he did not provide the Club with a medical report of his last injury neither his application to the required eVisa to demonstrate his intent to undergo the medical examination in Saudi Arabia.

24. According to the Club, the media releases demonstrate that the Player had never accepted the Offer, as they showed that he had ongoing negotiations with other clubs. In this respect, “[the Player’s]

demonstrate his intent to undergo the medical examination in Saudi Arabia.

24. According to the Club, the media releases demonstrate that the Player had never accepted the Offer, as they showed that he had ongoing negotiations with other clubs. In this respect, “[the Player’s] decision to sign with U Cluj (…), indicates that no binding c ontract was accepted with Abha, This decision and corresponding public statements further affirm the absence of prior communications to Abha, as such agreements would legally prevent signing with another club without first resolving or disclosing these commitments”.

25. The Club argued that the fact that the Player swiftly signed an employment contract with Universitatea Cluj after the expiry of the deadline provided in the Offer suggests that his focus might not have been to secure a deal with the Respondent, but rather a planned transfer to another club and to obtain a better deal. According to the Respondent, the press releases evidenced that the Player declined the Offer because of personal factors, such as family and stability, over financial incentives. A ccording to the Respondent, “ The rigorous requirements for a medical examination to complete the international transfer to Abha, compounded by the necessity of passing this examinationREF. FPSD-14222

Page 9

and securing a Saudi eVisa, likely deterred the claimant from advancing with the offer. These conditions, critical for the transfer to proceed, remained unfulfilled by Vatajelu, signaling a lack of intent to join Abha. Instead, he chose U Cluj, a club that offered a recovery -friendly environment with customized training regimes and less immediate pressure for match fitness, crucial for his situation as an athlete recovering from a serious injury”.

26. The Club further argued that “ the non-pursuit of the steps required by the Abha proposal, specifically the medical examination and visa procedures that had to be conducted in Romania, can be interpreted as an implicit rejection of the offer”. The Respondent submitted that the fulfilment of these conditions rested on the Player, as he could allegedly opt to pass the medical examination in Romania or apply

the medical examination and visa procedures that had to be conducted in Romania, can be interpreted as an implicit rejection of the offer”. The Respondent submitted that the fulfilment of these conditions rested on the Player, as he could allegedly opt to pass the medical examination in Romania or apply to a Saudi eVisa to have the examination in Saudi Arabia. Accordingly, the Club concluded that “ the evidence clearly indicates that the claimant did not accept and submit his acceptance to Abha on 16 June 2023”.

27. As to the flight tickets, the Club argued that its issuance was contingent upon the Player completing the visa and medical examination process and formally accepting the employment offer.

28. The Respondent insisted that Mr Akram was not authorised to act on behalf of the Player. In this regard, there is no evidence suggesting that Mr Teodorescu, to whom the Player had extended a power of attorney, was involved in or aware of the WhatsApp conversations provided by the Player.

According to the Club, “This participation of Mr Akram, who lacks the legal authority to bind the claimant in any contractual agreement, fundamentally undermines the legality of any agreements purportedly reached”, reason why the claim should be dismissed.

29. The Club also submitted that Annex 3 of the claim, c onsisting of the WhatsApp message from Mr Akram to the Club where he allegedly sent a signed copy of the Offer, is legally inadmissible. In this respect, “Mr Akram’s involvement as an unauthorized agent casts doubt on the legality and legitimacy of the alleged contract acceptance”.

30. The Respondent also challenged the authenticity of Annex 2 of the claim, consisting of the signed copy of the Offer. The Club argued that it received the signed copy of the Offer only on 20 October 2023, which is suspicious considering that the Offer was sent on 16 June 2023.

31. The Club questioned the authenticity of the Player’s signature i n the Offer, comparing it with other signatures of the Player that are accessible in the file. The Club provided a detailed analysis of the

2023, which is suspicious considering that the Offer was sent on 16 June 2023.

31. The Club questioned the authenticity of the Player’s signature i n the Offer, comparing it with other signatures of the Player that are accessible in the file. The Club provided a detailed analysis of the signature of the Player in the different documents on file comparing them to the one in the Offer .

32. According to the Respondent, “Notable variations in stroke and flow and character formation strongly suggest potential forgery or unauthorized replication. Therefore, the defense asserts that the signature lacks credibility as evidence of agreement and requests its dismissal from consideration”.

33. The Respondent further argued that the mere signature of the Offer was not enough, as it explicitly stated that “We kindly request that you respond to this proposal within 48 hours of receiving this letter,REF. FPSD-14222

Page 10

indicating your acceptance or rejection”. In this respect, the signature could be interpreted merely as an acknowledgement of receipt or review, rather than the agreement to the Offer.

34. The Club insisted in the fact that the Offer was explicitly non -binding, as it was conditione d to the fulfilment of three conditions: proof of free agent status, passing of a medical examination, and concluding a formal employment contract.

35. Additionally, the Respondent argued that after it withdrawn the Offer on 19 June 2023, the Player did not express any objections, attempted to rectify the situation neither did he demonstrate a continued interest in meeting the Offer’s conditions. According to the Respondent, “the claimant did not take the necessary steps to progress toward a binding agree ment, thus justifying the club’s decision to withdraw the offer”.

36. The Club requested the following relief:

“Dismiss the Player’s claim on the grounds that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of this tribunal. According to FIFA regulations, the scope of jurisdiction primarily covers disputes arising directly from employment relationships between clubs and players. We assert that the current matter does not pertain

36. The Club requested the following relief:

“Dismiss the Player’s claim on the grounds that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of this tribunal. According to FIFA regulations, the scope of jurisdiction primarily covers disputes arising directly from employment relationships between clubs and players. We assert that the current matter does not pertain to such an employment relationship and, therefore, falls outside this tribunal's jurisdi ctional purview.

Request that the tribunal declare the signature on the proposal non -authentic and the acceptance of the proposal formally invalid. The contested authenticity of the signature and non -compliance with the recognized legal standards for formal acceptance render any alleged agreement legally void.

Declare the claim inadmissible due to the inclusion of unauthorized WhatsApp communications provided by a third party. These communications were obtained and submitted without proper legal authority , violating the principles of evidence admissibility under FIFA’s procedural guidelines, which require that evidence must be both relevant and procured in a legally compliant manner.

Declare the evidence supporting the claims, specifically Annex 2, and Annex 3, as inadmissible for failing to substantiate the alleged formal acceptance on June 16, 2023. This annex does not meet the evidentiary standard required to demonstrate formal acceptance, lacking both the necessary detail and legal validity to be considered reliable proof of an agreement.

Declare the claim invalid due to the non -fulfillment of precedent conditions specified in the non -binding proposal. These conditions, essential for the evolution of the proposal into a binding agreement, were not met, i.e. Annex 4 was formally submitted on 20 June 2023 and lacked a medical examination. Consequently, under standard contract law principles recognized in international sports arbitrat ion, no enforceable contract was formed.

Reject the claims of verbal and unjust withdrawal and deny the request for compensation for breach of contract, citing the absence of a binding and enforceable contract.REF. FPSD-14222 Page 11

Declare the dismissal of all claims for dam ages or compensation, as the Player has not established a

Reject the claims of verbal and unjust withdrawal and deny the request for compensation for breach of contract, citing the absence of a binding and enforceable contract.REF. FPSD-14222 Page 11

Declare the dismissal of all claims for dam ages or compensation, as the Player has not established a legally binding contract, nor has he demonstrated any breaches attributable to the Club or substantiated any loss of damages.

The Respondent also requests any further relief that this tribunal deem s just and appropriate under the circumstances, to ensure equity and justice in the resolution of this dispute ”.

c. Replica of the Claimant

37. In his replica, the Player argued that the Respondent withdrew the Offer after he had signed it because the board of the Club changed their perspective and decided to sign a different player. The Player argued that the WhatsApp message from Mr Hathra on 23 June 2023 proves that the Respondent did not fulfil its obligations as it never provided him with flight tickets to Abha, neither did it conduct the medical examination.

38. The Player denied the argumentation of the Respondent, and essentially argued that h e did not arrive in Saudi Arabia because of the unilateral decision of the Club.

39. The Claimant argued that both Mr Akram and Mr Teodorescu were his agents and could negotiate his transfer to the Respondent. According to the Player, the only person without a mandate to represent him was Mr Bouraoui.

40. In any event, the Player argued that even if Mr Akram would not have a written mandate from him, this could not affect the consent of the Player to join the Respondent.

41. The Player challenged the press interviews provided by the Club, and alleged having no connection with the media articles regarding his transfer to the Respondent.

42. According to the Player, it is not true that he had no interest in signing with the Respondent, as it is proven by the fact that he accepted the Offer the same day it was sent to him. The Player decided

with the media articles regarding his transfer to the Respondent.

42. According to the Player, it is not true that he had no interest in signing with the Respondent, as it is proven by the fact that he accepted the Offer the same day it was sent to him. The Player decided to join Universitatea Cluj only after the Respondent informed him that they had changed their minds and would finally not conclude an employment contract.

43. The Player argued that he signed the Offer in his iPhone, and this is the reason why the signatures are not identical “ cause the holographic signature ca nnot be exactly reproduced through the iPhone device with a finger”.

44. The Claimant insisted in the fact that, according to the well -established jurisprudence of the Chamber, the Offer should be considered a valid and binding employment contract, as it incl uded the essentialia negotii.

45. The Claimant reiterated his entitlement to receive USD 324,258.98, corresponding to the mitigated residual value of the Offer.REF. FPSD-14222

Page 12

d. Duplica of the Respondent

46. In its duplica, the Respondent insisted that the Offer was conditional upon the Player provided proof of his free agent status within a deadline of 48 hours.

47. The Club also insisted that the Player did not meet his burden of proof regarding the delivery of the above-mentioned information, neither that Mr Akram represented him. According to the Club, there is no evidence that the Player accepted the Offer either.

48. The Respondent denied that Mr Teodorescu and Mr Akram were both instructed by the Player to negotiate his transfer to the Club, and that only Mr Teodorescu was the s ole recognized agent to negotiate on behalf of the Player.

49. The Club argued that there is no evidence that the Offer and the release letter were officially sent to or acknowledged by it.

50. The Respondent also argued that Mr Bouraoui was actively involved in the initial stages of the

negotiate on behalf of the Player.

49. The Club argued that there is no evidence that the Offer and the release letter were officially sent to or acknowledged by it.

50. The Respondent also argued that Mr Bouraoui was actively involved in the initial stages of the communications, and was the only authorised person to ne