The Players’ Status Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal (“the FIFA Tribunal”) has handed down its decision in Koopman v Football Association of Maldives (“FAM”), entering judgment in favour of the Dutch football coach Martin Koopman in his financial claim against his former employer, FAM.
The decision of the FIFA Tribunal in Koopman comes shortly after the FIFA Tribunal’s recent decision in Hiddink v FAM (in which proceedings David also represented the successful claimant). Further detail on that decision, can be found here.
Background
In January 2021, Mr Koopman and FAM concluded the terms of an employment contract (“the Contract”) whereby Mr Koopman was appointed as head coach of the Maldives’ Men’s National Football Team, for a three-year term. However, some 6 months into his tenure on 1 August 2021, Mr Koopman was informed in a letter from FAM’s Executive Committee that his employment was being terminated.
FAM’s Executive Committee terminated Mr Koopman’s employment contract on the basis of alleged poor performance and secondly, the submission of poor reports.
Legal issues
Mr Koopman filed his claim at the FIFA Tribunal on 30 November 2021, seeking inter alia damages equivalent to the residual value of his employment contract, pursuant to Article 6 of Annexe 8 of the governing FIFA Regulations (“termination without just cause”).
FAM resisted the claim contending that both parties had voluntarily agreed to the terms of a possible termination. Further, FAM alleged that Mr Koopman had given cause to terminate the employment contract based on (i) his unsatisfactory performance; and (ii) the submission of poor reports in breach of various obligations set out in Mr Koopman’s employment contract.
Discussion & considerations
It was noted by the Single Judge that, in any event, a coach’s poor performance (which was not the case here) cannot be a valid reason for an employer to cease paying due salaries or to terminate an employment contract as this is a purely unilateral and subjective evaluation by a member association.
In light of the above, it was also noted by the Single Judge that the Maldives Men’s National Football Team had qualified for the final round of the 2023 AFC Asian Cup on 16 June 2021 for the first time under Mr Koopman’s short period in charge, and furthermore, that FAM’s President had personally congratulated Mr Koopman and the team as a result of this qualification.
Decision
In its decision the FIFA Tribunal rejected each of FAM’s defences to the claim.
Firstly, FAM’s argument that Mr Koopman’s performance was not satisfactory could not be upheld given the success of the team in his relatively short tenure. Secondly, FAM’s allegations that Mr Koopman had submitted poor reports could not be substantiated as FAM had not (i) highlighted any specific area of the reports deemed to be substandard; (ii) requested any additional information from Mr Koopman concerning the reports and; (iii) put him on notice by any means of communication. In fact, the opposite was true as had been mentioned above with the President of FAM personally congratulating Mr Koopman on his work with the national team.
As a consequence, FAM has been ordered to pay Mr Koopman the full residual value of the Contract (which spanned until January 2024) as damages, together with interest. In the event that FAM fails to pay within the 45-day period running from notification of the decision, it will incur further financial sanctions from FIFA – under article 8 of Annexe 2 of the FIFA Regulations – notably “a restriction on receiving a percentage of development funding, up until the due amounts are paid”.
We would like to thank Ashley Cukier of Littleton Chambers for his assistance and expertise throughout this matter.
Full details of the case can be found on FIFA’s website here.