Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 January 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER, Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
GAUCI, Sihon (Malta), Member
VAURASI, Laurel (Fiji), Member
CLAIMANT:
A, Country A & C
RESPONDENT:
B, Country B
Page 2
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 10 January 2019, the Country A and Country C player, Mr A (hereinafter: the player or
the Claimant), and the Country B club, B (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) signed an
employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2023 (hereinafter: the
employment contract).
2.
In accordance with item 4 (1) of the employment contract, the club undertook to pay the
player the following remuneration:
a. From 10 January 2019 until 30 June 2019: the total amount of EUR 2,079,500 net,
being EUR 614,000 net due by no later than 15 January 2019, and the remaining
amount in 6 monthly salaries of EUR 244,250 net due by the end of each month (i.e.
from January to June 2019);
b. Season 2019/2020: the total amount of EUR 4,159,000 net, being EUR 805,000 net
due by no later than 15 July 2019, and the remaining amount in 12 monthly salaries
of EUR 279,500 net due by the end of each month (i.e. from July 2019 to June 2020);
c. Season 2020/2021: the total amount of EUR 4,159,000 net, being EUR 805,000 net
due by no later than 15 July 2020, and the remaining amount in 12 monthly salaries
of EUR 279,500 net due by the end of each month (i.e. from July 2020 to June 2021);
d. Season 2021/2022: the total amount of EUR 4,275,000 net, being EUR 652,000 net
due by no later than 15 July 2021, and the remaining amount in 12 monthly salaries
of EUR 301,100 net due by the end of each month (i.e. from July 2021 to June 2022);
and
e. Season 2022/2023: the total amount of EUR 4,275,000 net, being EUR 652,000 net
due by no later than 15 July 2022, and the remaining amount in 12 monthly salaries
of EUR 301,100 net due by the end of each month (i.e. from July 2022 to June 2023).
3.
Additionally, item 4 (2) of the employment contract established that the player would be
entitled, inter alia, to the following contingent payments:
a. Bonus per goal scored in the Country B Professional League (season 2018/2019), as
follows:
-
As from 6 goals scored (up to 7): EUR 62,500;
-
As from 8 goals scored (up to 9): EUR 62,500 additional bonus;
-
10 goals scored: EUR 100,000 additional bonus;
-
For every goal above 10 goals: EUR 15,000 per additional goal.
Page 3
b. Bonus per goal scored in the Cup or the Confederation Champions League amounting
to EUR 5,000 per goal;
c. Bonus per assist, as follows:
-
Bonus per assist in the Country B Professional League Championship: EUR 3,000
per assist;
-
Bonus per assist in the Cup or the Confederation Champions League: EUR 1,500
per assist.
4.
Last paragraph of item 4 (2) of the employment contract read as follows: “the goal / assist
bonus is calculated as per the official scorer list of the Country B Professional League and
payable within 30 (thirty) days starting to count from the moment when the respective is
fulfilled. If the player permanently leaves the club before the end of a season, all goal / assist
bonus payments achieved so far in that season become due at the moment the player leaves
the club”.
5.
Moreover, item 4 (3) of the employment contract set forth that all the amounts due to the
player would be paid net of any taxes.
6.
As per item 4 (4), (5) and (6), the player would also be entitled to:
a. “luxury accommodation at a compound, selected by the player for a maximum total
cost of USD 50,000 per year”;
b. “one luxury car with full insurance cover and registration paid for by the club, for the
player’s exclusive use. Normal running costs shall be borne by the player (fuel,
maintenance and other”); and
c. “overall total of 10 (ten) round trip Business Class tickets per season (destination to be
chosen by the player). For the avoidance of doubt, when the player takes up
employment with the club, the club will provide an additional flight ticket for the
player”.
7.
Finally, items 6 and 6bis of the employment contract read as follows:
“Item 6: Regular Payment of Salary / Contract Registration Fee
[The club] may not delay payment of the [player’s] salaries or terminate the contract due
to player’s injury during matches or training.
In terms of timely payment of all cash benefits specified in Item 4 of this Contract, the
Parties agree on the following:
Page 4
In case [the club] fails to pay to [the player] two monthly salaries as determined in Item 4
of this Contract (or any other of the financial benefits granted in Item 4 in an amount
equalling two monthly salaries), [the player] is obliged to sent [the club] notice in writing,
expressly warranting that he will unilaterally terminate the contract for such non-payment
and give it a further (10) working days to pay in full such monetary amount. If within the
next ten (10) working days, [the club] fails to pay [the player] this monetary amount, [the
player] shall have the right to unilaterally terminate this contract with just cause and request
compensation as determined in Item 6bis.
Item 6bis: Termination of Contract
If at any moment during the validly of this Contract, the club unilaterally terminated this
Contract without just cause, or if a contractual violation committed by the club gives the
player just cause to terminate this contract (within the meaning of art. 17 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players), and if the Contract is so terminated, the
player shall have the right to request payment of compensation as per the applicable rules
and regulations of FIFA.
If at any moment during the validity of this Contract, the player unilaterally terminates this
Contract without just cause, or if a contractual violation committed by the player gives the
club just cause to terminate this contract (within the meaning of art. 17 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players), and if the Contract is so terminated, the
club shall have the right to request payment of compensation as per the applicable rules
and regulations of FIFA, taking into account in particular the non-amortized portion of the
transfer fee paid by the club for the player (based on a linear pro-rata amortization over
the initial contractual period, without extension)”.
8.
On 31 July 2020 and following the delivery of several default notices from the player to the
club, the player lodged a claim before the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) for outstanding
remuneration only (case ref. xxx).
9.
On 19 August, 7 September, 28 September and 7 December 2020, the player put the club in
default regarding his outstanding remuneration. In every opportunity, the player requested
the club cure its breach within the following 10 days.
10. On 16 December 2020, the DRC passed its decision in case ref. xxx and ruled that the club
should pay the player the amount of EUR 1,666,787 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 July
2020 until the date of effective payment.
11. On 31 January 2021, the player and the club entered into an amendment to the employment
contract (hereinafter: the amendment). Accordingly, the parties established, inter alia, the
following:
a. The club had outstanding payable towards the player related to the seasons 2018/2019
and 2019/2020 amounting to EUR 658,500;
Page 5
b. The club hired another foreigner player and removed the player’s name from the list of
eligible players for the remainder official matches of the 2019/2020 season;
c. The player agreed that the club could remove his name from the list for the remainder
of the 2019/2020 season and the club authorized him to look for a loan agreement
with a third club;
d. During the period of a potential loan, the club would still be liable to pay the player’s
salaries. Any amount paid by a third club would be “credited to the salary payments
that would otherwise be due by the club to the player”. Nevertheless, no bonus
payments would be due to the player while he was on loan;
e. The player would be allowed to leave Country B even if no loan agreement with a third
club was concluded. However, the player would be obliged to return to Country B if
he was again included by the club in the list of eligible players. At all times, the player
should maintain his “full physical capabilities in line with the requirements for a
professional football player and, for doing this, he shall be authorized to join trainings
with a third club of his choice”;
f. The remaining clauses of the employment contract remained in force.
12. On 8 February 2021, the club lodged an appeal against the decision passed by the DRC on
16 December 2020 regarding case ref. xxx to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Such
appeal proceeding was registered under ref. CAS xxx.
13. On 1 March, 28 March, 16 May and 7 July 2021, the player sent new default notices to the
club. Apart from the outstanding remuneration, the player also referred to a problem with
his health insurance (and his family) as well as mentioned that he was being “treated
differently from his team-mates in respect of salary payments […] due to the fact that he
exercised his rights” i.e. because he lodged a previous claim before the DRC. In each of the
letters, the player granted the club a 10 days’ deadline in order to remedy the situation.
14. In July 2021, the parties’ legal representatives exchanged e-mails regarding a possible
settlement agreement, but no amicable solution was reached. Specifically, on 21 July 2021,
the player’s legal representative referred to his previous correspondence dated 7 July 2021
and wrote, in verbis: “[…] please note that the terms of our letter of 7 July 2021 remain fully
valid and the Player expects them to be addressed without further delay”.
15. In parallel, in July 2021, the player’s intermediary also exchanged e-mails with a representative
of the club requesting documentation for the player’s return to the training sessions with the
club (i.e. flight tickets, invitation letter and visa).
Page 6
16. On 5 August 2021, the club sent the player’s intermediary a draft of a settlement agreement
to be concluded between the parties. Accordingly, the player would be entitled inter alia to
EUR 10,250,000.
17. On 13 August 2021, the club sent the player’s intermediary a correspondence by means of
which it: (i) acknowledged that it had the intention to terminate the employment contract
with the player; (ii) referred to a new settlement proposal for the amount of EUR 7,500,000;
and (iii) gave notice to the player to confirm until 15 August 2021 whether he was in
agreement with the final solution, under penalty of the employment contract been deemed
terminated with just cause under art. 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (RSTP).
18. On 14 August 2021, the player replied to the club’s letter and opposed its allegations. In
doing so, the player requested the club to pay EUR 4,592,387 plus interests, as well as to: (i)
cure the unequal treatment of the player vis-à-vis his team-mates; (ii) cure the player’s
exclusion from the pre-season first team meeting; (iii) provide the documentation for his
return to Country B; (iv) confirm that a penalty allegedly imposed by the club of 15% over
his salary from June 2020 would be withdrawn. Moreover, he maintained that any
termination by the club would be deemed without just cause and, moreover, that he would
also consider the employment contract to be simultaneously terminated for overdue payables
following the letter sent by the player on 7 July 2021.
19. On 15 August 2021, the club notified the player the unilateral termination of the employment
contract with immediate effect. To this extent, the club mentioned that the player’s “abusive
behaviour has put the club in sporting difficulties with the start of the championship and the
impossibility of registering the new player before releasing your place”. The club further
mentioned that the player was urging it to accept an “unreasonable financial request”, what
allegedly constituted a just cause for the termination.
20. On the same date, i.e. 15 August 2021, the player replied to the club’s letter and requested
confirmation of the content of the abovementioned termination notice. Subsequently, the
club’s representative confirmed the validity of the correspondences.
21. Also on 15 August 2021, the player sent the club another correspondence acknowledging its
termination of the employment contract and giving notice that he was simultaneously
terminating the employment contract due to overdue payables. In doing so, he alleged that
the player would be entitled to additional compensation in case of a claim before the Football
Tribunal.
22. On 13 October 2021, the player signed a new employment agreement with the Country D
club, D, valid as from 15 October 2021 until 30 June 2024.
23. Accordingly, the player is entitled to the following amounts, for the overlapping period
between his new contract with D and the employment contract:
Page 7
a. Currency country D 277,670 net from 15 October 2021 until 30 June 2022; and
b. Currency country D 283,968 net from 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2023.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 16 August 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
25. In his claim, the player stated that the employment contract was terminated on 15 August
2021 for overdue payables. In this regard, the player referred to his notice dated 7 July 2021
and held that, whereas the club expressly terminated employment contract without warning,
it was also simultaneously terminated by the player due to overdue payables, entailing that
he should be entitled to receive additional compensation in case of a claim before the Football
Tribunal.
26. In continuation, the player argued that the club terminated the employment contract without
just cause. In this respect, he referred to the negotiations maintained between the parties, as
well as the several correspondences exchanged in this regard. Furthermore, the player clarified
that: (i) the club terminated his contract in order to hire two other Brazilian players, Mr X and
Mr Y; (ii) the content of the termination notice sent by the club was untrue; and (iii) even if
the player had breached the employment contract, the club could have adopted more lenient
measures or granted a time-limit to cure the breach.
27. Additionally, the player remarked that, besides terminating the employment contract without
just cause, the club also adopted an abusive behaviour towards him, since the club, inter alia:
a. Owed him a total amount of EUR 4,592,387 plus interests, representing more than
1 entire season of the employment contract;
b. Excluded him from training sessions due to arbitrary decisions;
c. Repeatedly breached its financial duties towards him;
d. Excluded him from the list of eligible player’s for the 2021/2022 season;
e. Excluded him from the WhatsApp group of the team;
f. Failed to provide documentation for his return to Country B, in spite of being
requested to do so;
g. Did not submit him to medical examinations, alike his teammates;
Page 8
h. Discriminated him as a consequence of having lodged a claim for outstanding
remuneration; and
i.
Forced him to send numerous default notices without curing its breach.
28. In light of the above, the player highlighted that termination was made without just cause by
the club. On the contrary, the player stressed that he had just cause to terminate the contract
in line with both art. 14 and 14bis of the FIFA RSTP.
29. Consequently, the player claimed that he should be awarded the following amounts:
a. EUR 3,071,293.54 net as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows:
(i)
EUR 279,500.00 (Salary December 2020), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 31
December 2020;
(ii) EUR 3,000.00 (bonus assist xx) plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 5 January 2021;
(iii) EUR 10,000.00 (bonus two goal xx Cup) plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 16
January 2021;
(iv) EUR 279,500.00 (Salary January 2021), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 31
January 2021;
(v) EUR 279,500.00 (Salary February 2021), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 28
February 2021;
(vi) EUR 279,500.00 (Salary March 2021), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 31 March
2021;
(vii) EUR 279,500.00 (Salary April 2021), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 30 April
2021;
(viii) EUR 279,500.00 (Salary May 2021), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 31 May
2021;
(ix) EUR 3,000.00 (bonus assist xx) plus legal interest of 5% p.a. as from 29 June
2021;
(x) EUR 279,500.00 (Salary June 2021), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 30 June
2021;
(xi) EUR 652,000.00 (Lump Sum 4th Season), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 30
June 2021;
Page 9
(xii) EUR 301,100,00 (Salary July 2021), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 31 July 2021;
(xiii) EUR 145,693.54 (pro rata salary August 2021), plus interest of 5% p.a. as from
15 August 2021.
b. EUR 7,451,206.46 net as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to
the residual value of the employment contract (i.e. 3,176,206.46 for the remainder
2021/2022 season plus EUR 4,275,000 for the 2022/2023 season);
c. EUR 1,806,600 net as additional compensation for egregious circumstances (i.e. 6
monthly salaries of EUR 301,100 each);
d. EUR 1,806,600 net as compensation for moral damages related to the specificity of
sport;
e. EUR 260,000 net “of taxes for the benefits in kind provided under the employment
contract”, broken down as follows:
(i)
USD 60,000 net as the expenses for a luxury car (i.e. USD 30,000 per season);
(ii) USD 100,000 net as the expenses for accommodation (i.e. USD 50,000 per
season); and
(iii) USD 100,000 net as the expenses for 20 round-trip business class tickets to a
destination chosen by the player (i.e. USD 5,000 as a ticket average).
30. Finally, the player requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club in line with art.
12bis of the FIFA RSTP.
b. Position of the Respondent
31. In its reply, the club held the parties had the common will to terminate the employment
contract and started negotiations to do so. Nevertheless, “as soon as the claimant became
aware that the club had recruited a player, he changed his position and started asking for
unreasonable amounts”. As such, the club informed that the player’s abusive behaviour left
it with no other option rather than to terminate the employment contract in line with art. 14
of the FIFA RSTP.
32. Having established the above, the club indicated that – conversely to the player’s
argumentation – it was the one to terminate the employment contract, and based on a
legitimate reason, caused by the player. In this regard, the club stressed that the player
acknowledged receipt of the termination notice dated 14 August 2021, and only later
informed that he terminated the employment contract due to overdue payables.
Page 10
33. As regards to the player’s behaviour, the club stated that it had just cause to terminate the
employment contract or, at least, that the circumstances attributable to the player were
legitimate to consider that he bears “the important part of responsibility and not grant [him]
any compensation due to the fact of the inapplicability of article 17 of the FIFA RSTP in the
present case”.
34. Based on the above, the club claimed that the player’s claim should be rejected. Alternatively,
it claimed that any potential compensation due to the player should be mitigated taking into
consideration “the circumstance of the case, the severity of the breach and the behaviour of
all the parties”.
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 16 August 2021 and submitted for decision
on 13 January 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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 (August 2021 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 Country A / Country
C player and a Country B club.
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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 August 2021, the February 2021 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
Page 11
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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
40. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the case at hand pertains to a claim for outstanding
remuneration, breach of contract and compensation for moral damages lodged by the player
against the club.
41. In this context, the DRC noted that the parties strongly dispute who terminated the
employment contract, whether he / it have just cause to do so, and the consequences that
follow.
42. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
documentation on file and observed that, by correspondence dated 15 August 2021, the club
terminated the employment contract based on the player’s alleged “abusive behaviour”
towards it. Furthermore, the DRC was also observant that the player acknowledged receipt
of said correspondence, as well as that its content was dully confirmed by the club’s legal
representatives. The Chamber did not fail to notice either that the player stressed that – in
line with his previous notices of default – the employment contract was simultaneously
terminated by him due to overdue payables.
43. In view of the above and after carefully analysing the content of the notices exchanged
between the parties, the DRC considered that – for reasons that it could not precise – the
player did not terminate the employment contract with the club – in spite of the several
defaults notices delivered as regards to its repetitive breaches, but solely confirmed the
termination after the club’s letter of 15 August 2021. It follows, in the Chamber’s opinion,
that the club was the first one to certify the end of the employment relationship in line with
art. 14 of the Regulations.
44. Having established the above, the DRC moved to the analysis of just cause. In doing so, the
Chamber first of all wished to recall its well-established jurisprudence according to which only
a breach or misconduct that is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In
other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit the
Page 12
expectation that the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties can
continue, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient
measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment
of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment
contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima
ratio measure.
45. In light of the above, the DRC acknowledged that club based its termination on: (i) the player’s
(alleged) abusive behaviour towards it during the negotiations of a potential settlement
agreement between the parties; and (ii) its need to register other foreigner players. In this
respect, the DRC was satisfied with the conclusion that none of the aforementioned reasons
could justify the premature termination of the parties’ contractual relationship in the case of
stake.
46. In particular, the Chamber found it noteworthy that the club did not advance any evidence
in support of its allegations and specially concluding the argued “abusive” behaviour by the
player, hence failing to carry its burden of proof in accordance with article 13, par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules. Moreover, the DRC outlined that the club did not challenge the fact that it
had overdue payables towards the player, nor submitted any documentation proving that it
had tried to adopt a more lenient approach in order to remedy the situation. By way of
conclusion, the DRC determined that the argumentation of the club could not be upheld.
47. In addition to the above, the DRC also referred to its long-standing jurisprudence which
establishes that the validity of an employment contract cannot be made conditional upon the
execution of (administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited to, the registration procedure
in connection with the international transfer of a player, considered to be of the sole
responsibility of a club and on which a player has no influence. Likewise, the Chamber
highlighted that the club’s internal proxy rule in connection to the registration of foreigners
(as described in the club’s statement of defence) could not have legal effect on the validity of
the employment contract itself, let alone justify an abrupt termination.
48. In light of the above, the members of the DRC unanimously decided that the club terminated
the employment contract with the player without just cause. Consequently, it shall be liable
to the consequences the follow.
ii. Consequences
49. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
50. The Chamber observed that the player’s request for outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination is contractually based, supported by convincing documentary evidence and
remained uncontested by the club.
Page 13
51. As a consequence of the above, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall be liable to pay to the player
the amounts claimed, corresponding to the salaries from December 2020 until July 2021, plus
the bonuses per goal scored and assists (cf. Item 4 (2) of the employment contract).
52. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award him interest at the rate of 5% p.a.
on the outstanding amounts as from the date in which each instalment fell due until the date
of effective payment.
53. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, 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.
54. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of 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. On the contrary, the parties stipulated that a potential calculation would be fixed in
in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
55. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a
non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
56. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. In this respect, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of EUR 7,611,206.46 (i.e. the residual salaries of the seasons 2021/2022 and
2022/2023, plus the accommodation allowance and the car allowance) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
57. For the sake of completeness, the DRC wished to clarify that the amounts indicated by the
player as flight tickets (i.e. EUR 100,000) were not added to the calculation because of their
speculative nature and lack of clear reference in the employment contract. Therefore, the
DRC determined that the player’s position in this regard should be set aside.
Page 14
58. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
59. Indeed, the player found employment with D. In accordance with the pertinent employment
contract, the player was entitled to Country D currency 561,638 net for the overlapping
period. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of approx. EUR 357,243 net.
60. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber recalled that – in spite of the player sending the
club several default notices – the club was the one to (unlawfully) terminate the employment
contract. Therefore, by referring to the strict wording of the Regulations regarding the
additional compensation, the DRC decided that no additional compensation could be granted
to the player.
61. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR
7,253,963.46 net to the player (i.e. EUR 7,611,206.46 minus EUR 357,243), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the
present matter.
62. Taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber
in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation at the
rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 August 2021 until the date of effective payment.
63. Finally, the DRC decided that player’s claim for compensation for moral damages related to
the specificity of sport should be rejected bearing in mind that the eventual damages could
not be properly quantified and the request was of a speculative nature only. Likewise, in line
with the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the Chamber considered that
the player’s request for moral damages lacks regulatory basis.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
64. Taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis par. 1 and
2 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.
Page 15
65. In this regard, the DRC highlighted 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. The overall maximum
duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
66. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the club must pay the full amount
due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the player, a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods shall become immediately effective on the club in accordance with art.
24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
67. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
68. The DRC 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. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
69. The Chamber 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to
be imposed on the parties.
70. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25 par.
8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in
these proceedings.
71. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 16
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 279,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2021 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 3,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 January 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 10,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 January
2021 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 279,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February
2021 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 279,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 279,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 279,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 279,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 3,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 June 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 279,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 652,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 July 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 301,100 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August
2021 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 145,693.54 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 August
2021 until the date of effective payment;
Page 17
- EUR 7,253,963.46 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 16 August 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of
notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 18
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).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 19