Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 February 2015,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member
on the matter involving the player,
Player A, Country B,
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
and the club,
Club C, Country D,
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club E, Country F
as Intervening party
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 January 2012, the Player from Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent) and the Club from Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract) valid as of the date of signature until 31 December 2013.
2.
Pursuant to article 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of the contract, the Claimant / CounterRespondent is to receive the following fixed remuneration:
EUR 1,000,000 net as sign-on fee payable within seven working days “upon
execution of the contract and Football Association of Country D’s receipt of the
effective International Transfer Certificate (ITC)”;
EUR 7,000,000 net as annual salary.
3.
Article 5 par. 3 of the contract provides, inter alia, for the following bonuses:
USD 5,000 for each match won in the Super League of Football Association of
Country D in the event the Claimant / Counter-Respondent plays more than 45
minutes, or USD 2,500 in the event the Claimant / Counter-Respondent makes an
appearance as a substitute;
USD 2,000 for each match drawn in the Super League of Country D, or USD 1,000
in the event the Claimant / Counter-Respondent makes an appearance as a
substitute.
4.
According to article 7 par. 6 of the contract, “Party A [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] shall conduct work visa and bear the related expenses for Party B [the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”.
5.
Article 8 of the contract provides for all of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
obligations as well as the sanctions resulting from the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s breach. In particular, article 8 stipulates the following:
par. 8 lit. 1 “a penalty of USD 10,000 will be imposed for each absence from
training session (unless through sickness or injury) without authorization or the
approval of the club. (…) More than three times’ training absences by Party B [the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent] shall constitute the Material Breach of the
Contract”.
par. 10 “when Party B [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] accepts media
interview with Party A [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]’s permission, his
responses shall be limited to the scope which has been confirmed by Party A [the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant] (…)”.
6.
Article 9 par. 4 of the contract foresees that “if the contract is intentionally
terminated by Party B [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent], Party B [the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent] shall compensate Party A [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]
with Euro 7 million”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
2/22
7.
Article 9 par. 5 (2) further stipulates that “Party B [the Claimant / CounterRespondent] may inform Party A [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] to terminate
the contract if Party A [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] (…) fails to make
payments due under this Agreement, if said failure is not remedied within 28 days
of notification thereof; provided that, all the amount due according to the Contract
shall be immediately payable to Party B [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”.
8.
Pursuant to article 11 par. 2 of the contract, “Party B [the Claimant / CounterRespondent] shall get Party A [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]’s written
consent in advance, if Party B [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] wants to be
transferred to other club during the contract period, furthermore, Party B [the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent] shall discuss the related transfer fee with Party A
[the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”.
9.
According to article 15 par. 2 of the contract, “any disputes in respect of matters of
football, discipline, or transfers shall be submitted to the arbitration commission of
Football Association of Country D, and the arbitral award shall be final (when the
subject matter of the dispute is of a domestic variety). Any other dispute of a more
international nature, involving for example any international transfer or any
matters which falls under the ambit of any FIFA regulations, shall be submitted to
the arbitration committee of FIFA, and FIFA’s decision is final.”
10.
Article 17 par. 6 of the contract states that “matters uncovered in this contract shall
be managed in accordance with the laws, regulations, rules of Country D and
relevant provisions of FIFA and Football Association of Country D”.
11.
The contract also states that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to provide the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent with accommodation.
12.
On 31 December 2012, the parties amicably put an end to the contract (hereinafter:
the termination agreement) by means of a document named “Confirmation on the
Termination of the Agreement” and stating that “both parties have no disputes
about such termination”.
13.
On 1 January 2013, the parties concluded a “supplementary agreement”
(hereinafter: the supplementary agreement).
14.
Article 1 of the supplementary agreement stipulates that “Parties mutually agree
that the contract (…) signed by both parties shall be terminated from January 10,
2013”.
15.
Article 2 of the supplementary agreement also states the following:
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
3/22
“The Party A [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] agrees to pay Party B [the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent] before January 10, 2013:
- the remaining salary, bonus and expenses due according to the Contract. This
amount will be on the 10th of January equal to EUR 1,785,380.
- a fixed compensation equal to EUR 1,000,000 (net).
Party B [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] accepted this termination on the
contract in consideration of the payment by Party A [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] before the January 10, 2013, of the unpaid salaries and fixed
compensation (2,785,380). If the payment is not made at this precise date the
contract will be considered terminated January 10, 2013 by party A [the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant], salary shall be due from January 1 to January 10, 2013 and this
shall constitute a material breach of the contract by Party A [the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant].”
16.
On 21 January 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent put the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant in default regarding the non-payment of the amounts foreseen in
the supplementary agreement.
17.
On 11 February 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a complaint
before FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, requesting the payment of
the following amounts:
EUR 1,975,902 as outstanding amounts broken down as follows:
- EUR 409,095 as 90% of his salary of September 2012, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 30
September 2012;
- EUR 454,545 as salary of October 2012, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 October 2012;
- EUR 454,545 as salary of November 2012, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 30 November
2012;
- EUR 454,545 as salary of December 2012, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 December
2012;
- EUR 188,172 as pro-rata salary from 1 to 10 January 2013;
- EUR 1,500 as match bonus for the match drawn against Club G in Super League of
Country D on 25 August 2012, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 August 2012;
- EUR 1,500 as match bonus for the match drawn against Club H in Super League of
Country D on 22 September 2012, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 30 September 2012;
- EUR 3,000 as match bonus for the match won against Club I on 15
September 2012, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 30 September 2012;
- EUR 3,000 as match bonus for the match won against Club J on 29 September
2012, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 30 September 2012;
- EUR 6,000 as accommodation expenses for September 2012.
EUR 7,000,000 as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the
contract, i.e. calendar year 2013.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
4/22
18.
In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent states that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant failed to meet its primary obligation of payment. The Claimant /
Counter-Respondent alleges that by the end of December 2012, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant had not paid his salary for more than three months, i.e. most of
September 2012 until December 2012, as well as his bonuses for the
aforementioned matches and his accommodation expenses for September 2012. The
Claimant / Counter-Respondent further holds that the Respondent / CounterClaimant never honoured its obligation of payment on time. In this regard, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent lists each payment made by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant in order to evidence the repeated delays in the payment of his
salary and underlines that the last payment was made on 31 October 2012, allegedly
representing 10% of his salary of September 2012. The Claimant / CounterRespondent also refers to exchanges of e-mails dated 31 July 2012 until 10 August
2012 between his legal representative and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
regarding outstanding payments.
19.
In this context, aware of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s inability to pay
further remuneration, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustains that, even
though he was allegedly entitled to lodge a claim for breach of contract by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, he agreed upon an amicable termination of the
contract but subject to the main prerequisite of all outstanding amounts under the
contract being paid beforehand. In this context, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
provided exchanges of e-mails dated 28 November 2012 and 11 December 2012
between his legal representative and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
20.
Subsequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleges that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant did not comply with article 2 of the supplementary agreement
which had set the deadline of 10 January 2013 to pay the amount of EUR 2,785,380.
In particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent underlines the new deadlines of 20
and 31 January 2013 set by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, via e-mails dated 11
and 13 January 2013, in order to proceed to the said payment, but it apparently
never occurred.
21.
Consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deems that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant failed to comply with its obligation of payment provided for
under the supplementary agreement, which constitutes a material breach of the
employment contract as stated in article 2 of the said supplementary agreement.
Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considers that article 9.4 – a
contrario and pursuant to the principle of reciprocity – and article 9.5.2 of the
contract shall apply in order to determine the amount for compensation.
22.
In its statement of defence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant first of all contested
the jurisdiction of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC) on
the basis of the arbitration clause contained in the contract (cf. point 9 above).
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
5/22
Referring to article 15 par. 2 of the contract as well as article 5 of the Regulations of
the Football Association of Country D Arbitration Commission, that were provided
by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the latter holds that the Claimant / CounterRespondent should have lodged his claim before the relevant deciding body of the
Football Association of Country D insofar as the present matter is about salary
payments and termination of a contract concluded in Country D and therefore,
involves “domestic factors only”.
23.
Alternatively, in the event the DRC declares itself competent to adjudicate the
present matter, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant submitted its position as to the
substance of the dispute. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges having
complied with its contractual obligation of payment of remuneration to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
asserts having informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent about the fact that
Country D’s foreign exchange control would have an impact on salary payments and
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent apparently agreed. In this respect, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant refers to article 9.5 of the contract which provides
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant with a period of grace of 28 days in case of
failure to pay. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further underlines that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent never complained about such delays until the claim
lodged in February 2013.
24.
Subsequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant affirms that it was the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s will to terminate the contract. The Respondent / CounterClaimant holds that the parties concluded the supplementary agreement because
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was apparently not willing to stay. The
Respondent / Counter-Claimant further alleges that it agreed upon the payment of
EUR 2,785,380 as foreseen in article 2 of the supplementary agreement, subject to
the condition of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signing with no other club for
the next year. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant refers to article 11
par. 2 of the contract and explains that the supplementary agreement did not aim
at allowing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to be transferred to another club
and at the same time receiving the aforementioned payment.
25.
In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges that the termination
agreement was in fact signed on 25 January 2013 although it provided for the
termination of the contract as of 31 December 2012. In particular, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant explains that after the signature of the supplementary
agreement, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested it to sign a declaration
stating that the he was a free agent so he could sign with a new club and thus, the
termination agreement was signed by the parties.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
6/22
26.
In this context, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant deems that the supplementary
agreement was superseded by the termination agreement due to the following
reasons:
a) the date of termination set in the supplementary agreement, i.e. 10 January
2013, was actually changed to 31 December 2012;
b) if the Claimant / Counter-Respondent believed that the supplementary
agreement was still valid, he should have lodged a claim to FIFA due to the
termination of the contract without just cause by the Respondent / CounterClaimant or asked for the issuance of the provisional ITC to allow the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent to be registered immediately instead of signing the
termination agreement on 25 January 2013;
c) by signing the termination agreement, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
agreed upon the transfer of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent without asking
the new club to pay any transfer compensation and, in exchange, the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent apparently assented not to claim any outstanding amount
to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In order to corroborate its allegation,
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant quotes the termination agreement: “We,
Club C and Player A (…) hereby agree and confirm that the “Contract for the
Foreign Players of Super League of Country D” which was entered by us on
January 1, 2012, has been mutually terminated on the date of December 31,
2012. Both parties have no dispute about such termination”. In this respect, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant submitted a copy of the termination agreement
dated 31 December 2012 enclosed to an e-mail dated 25 January 2013 sent by
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.
27.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further considers that the Claimant / CounterRespondent acted in bad faith since after signing the termination agreement –
allegedly on 25 January 2013 – the Claimant / Counter-Respondent joined the Club
from Country F, Club E, on 1 February 2013. In particular, the Respondent / CounterClaimant alleges that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has been preparing to join
the said Club from Country F, without informing the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
in advance.
28.
Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges that in the event the breach
of the contract is confirmed, it should be due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s fault. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant points to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s performance which apparently was unsatisfactory. In
particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stresses that on 19 May 2012, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent was sanctioned with a yellow card during a match
against the Club from Country D, Club K, which led to the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s suspension for the following home match against the Club from
Country D, Club L. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also recalls that on 21 May
2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was absent from training without reason
and without informing the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in advance. In this
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
7/22
respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant refers to an e-mail sent to the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent on 22 May 2012, informing him about the imposition of a
fine amounting to USD 15,000 pursuant to article 8 of the contract.
29.
Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insists that it was the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent who breached the contract by not behaving correctly and, in
particular, by giving an interview without the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
authorisation on 21 May 2012 in breach of article 8 par. 10 of the contract. The
Respondent / Counter-Claimant also asserts that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
came back from his leave on 9 June 2012, while he was granted until 7 June 2012,
and did not resume training on that date, as stated in the e-mail dated 9 June 2012
sent to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant
further states that on 19 June 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent claimed
being injured. According to the diagnosis of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
doctor dated 27 April 2013, such injury did not influence training.
30.
In this respect, as a result of his alleged misbehaviour, the Respondent / CounterClaimant decided to impose on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent a fine
representing 10% of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s annual salary, i.e. EUR
700,000. In this respect, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent was informed that the amount of EUR 350,000 – as
first instalment of the fine – would be deducted from his salary of June 2012, in its
e-mails dated 19 June 2012 and 9 July 2012 sent to the Claimant / CounterRespondent / Counter-Claimant.
31.
In this context, on 10 May 2013, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a
counterclaim in front of FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for breach
of contract, requesting the following:
EUR 7,000,000 as compensation pursuant to article 9 par. 4 of the contract ;
EUR 750,000 as the non-amortised sign-on fee and transfer fee for the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent;
“EUR 420,000,000” as damages for “loss of the high quality professional services of
the player and specificity of sport”;
Compensation for the infringement of portrait rights.
32.
In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that FIFA has
jurisdiction to deal with the matter at stake. In particular, referring to article 15 par.
2 second sentence of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserts that
the matter at stake is of an international dimension – since it is a dispute between a
Player from Country B and a Club from Country D – and is about outstanding
salaries and compensation due to the alleged breach of contract by the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant and thus, falls under the competence of FIFA. Besides, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent emphasises that the NDRC of the Football
Association of Country D does not comply with the prerequisites of article 3 of the
FIFA Circular letter no. 1010 and art. 22 b) of the FIFA Regulations. In this respect,
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
8/22
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent points to the lack of information regarding the
terms and conditions to appoint the members of the NDRC of Football Association
of Country D as well as the non-conformity with the principle of equal
representation of the clubs and the players.
33.
With respect to the yellow card received during a match as well as his absence from
training on 21 May 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent contested the fine of
USD 15,000 imposed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in this respect, by means
of an e-mail dated 25 May 2012. Regarding his alleged absence on 19 June 2012
because of an injury, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent refutes the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant’s allegation, as well as the diagnosis of its doctor, by explaining
that he did complain about a leg injury, by means of an e-mail dated 20 June 2012
sent to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, but since the doctor of the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant apparently refused to do an X-ray, he had to attend training.
34.
As to his late return from vacation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustains that
he was willing to come back on the date initially set by the Respondent / CounterClaimant but he was informed that his visa had expired shortly before and thus, was
compelled to obtain his visa in emergency during his last days of vacation. By means
of an e-mail sent to the club on 11 June 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
points to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s negligence because it apparently did
not provide the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with a work visa as set forth in
article 7 par. 6 of the contract.
35.
Regarding his interview given on 21 May 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
asserts that the translation provided by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reflects
the impressions of the journalist only. In any event, the Claimant / CounterRespondent holds that it is without prejudice to the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s interests and does not breach article 8 of the contract.
36.
In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent points to the fine of EUR 700,000
(cf. point 30 above) and states that he was not convened or had his rights
represented during the proceedings relating to the aforementioned disciplinary
sanctions. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further holds that the fine of EUR
700,000 was imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in order to cover up
the financial issues faced by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and thus, its
inability to pay his salary from June 2012, as addressed in a press article dated 30
August 2012 relating the financial issues of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. The
Claimant / Counter-Respondent further sustains that after having contested this
fine, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant apparently agreed to call it off, as stated in
an e-mail dated 19 July 2012.
37.
In continuation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that the termination
agreement was signed by the parties on 31 December 2012 and that the
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
9/22
supplementary agreement, signed on 1 January 2013, had set the date of
termination of the contract on 10 January 2013. Thus, the Claimant / CounterRespondent deems that because he was no longer bound to the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant as from 10 January 2013, he was entitled to sign with another
club without any transfer compensation being due to the Respondent / CounterClaimant.
38.
In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent provides a letter dated 14
January 2013 from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant confirming that the parties
had terminated the contract amicably as from 10 January 2013 and that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent could train and sign with a new club, the content of
which was amended by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant by means of a letter
dated 21 January 2013 as follows: “As Club C and Player A has reached a
Supplementary Agreement on January 1, 2013 to amicably terminate the original
“Work Contract for the Foreign Players of Super League of Country D”, which was
signed on January 1, 2012. Therefore, we hereby confirm that Player A is free agent
player now”.
39.
Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent emphasises that the amounts set
forth in the supplementary agreement are still due and that the aforementioned
confirmation letters do not cancel or amend the supplementary agreement and
were addressed to the Football Association of Country D in order to allow the
transfer of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent before the end of the transfer
window in January 2013.
40.
Therefore, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, neither the termination
agreement nor the letters of confirmation of the termination are to be considered
as having superseded the supplementary agreement. The Claimant / CounterRespondent also holds that no further document was signed by himself that could
indicate that he waived his right to claim for outstanding amounts and
compensation.
41.
In view of all the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent reiterates his entire
claim.
42.
In its duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that FIFA has no jurisdiction
since, in accordance with Law of Country D, employment-related disputes are of the
“compulsory jurisdiction of Labour-dispute Arbitration Commission”, referring in
this respect to various articles of the Regulations on the Management of
Employment of Foreigners in Country D (1996 edition) as well as the Labour Law of
Country D on Mediation and Arbitration (2008 edition).
43.
Article 5 of the Labour Law of Country D on Mediation and Arbitration states that
“Where a labor dispute arises, the parties are not willing to have a consultation, the
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
10/22
consultation fails or the settlement agreement is reached but not performed, an
application for mediation may be made to an mediation institute. Where the parties
are not willing to mediate, the mediation fails or the mediation agreement is
reached but not performed, an application for arbitration may be made to the labor
dispute arbitration commission. Where there is objection to the arbitral award,
litigation may be initiated to a people’s court unless otherwise specified herein”.
44.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further maintains that in the event the said
“compulsory jurisdiction” is disregarded, the NDRC of the Football Association of
Country D shall be the sole deciding body to adjudicate the present case.
45.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also asserts that the national law of Country D
applies to the matter at stake as “the governing law” according to articles 1 and 17
par. 6 of the contract.
46.
Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges that the Claimant / CounterRespondent apparently does not deny that he had been continuously absent from
training and matches since May 2012 and that the reasons provided by the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent should not be taken into account, albeit he believed that
they were all approved by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. The Respondent /
Counter-Claimant further holds that it never received any leave of absence in
advance and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent should have known about the
expiration of his own visa and then inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to be
prepared in advance. Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant deems that the
sanctions imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for these reasons were
justified.
47.
Regarding the termination of the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
stresses once again that if it had been aware that the Claimant / CounterRespondent had already sought for a new club, then the Respondent / CounterClaimant would not have agreed upon any compensation. Moreover, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant would have asked for the new club of the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent to pay a transfer compensation.
48.
Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledges the signature of
the confirmation letter dated 14 January 2013. However, the Respondent / CounterClaimant reiterates that the last document signed was the termination agreement
on 25 January 2013, stating that “both sides have no dispute”.
49.
In any event, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant holds that from October 2012, the
parties started to negotiate on the early termination of the contract. Therefore, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant deemed having a legitimate reason not to pay the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s outstanding salaries. The Respondent / Counter-
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
11/22
Claimant even states that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent apparently showed
understanding and agreed upon the non-payment.
50.
In this context, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant concludes by explaining that:
(i) in the event the contract is deemed to be terminated by mutual agreement,
compensation and outstanding amounts shall not be due by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant since the parties allegedly agreed having no disputes regarding
the terminated contract pursuant to the termination agreement;
(ii) in the event the contract is deemed terminated unilaterally and without just
cause, it is due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s breach of contract, i.e. his
absences and misbehaviour;
(iii) in the event the contract is deemed terminated by the Respondent / CounterClaimant and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is to receive compensation,
the club alleges that:
a. the amount to be paid as compensation shall be based on the “supplementary
agreement”, corresponding to EUR 1,000,000;
b. then, the aforementioned amount should be mitigated according to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged remuneration with his new clubs.
Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is of the opinion that
compensation is no longer applicable.
51.
As regards Club E, the latter solely refuses to be involved in the matter at stake.
Club E holds that it is not liable in the sense of article 17 par. 2 and par. 4 of the
FIFA Regulations since the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant had agreed upon an amicable termination of the contract on 31
December 2012. In this regard, Club E provides a letter from the Football
Association of Country D dated 30 January 2013 acknowledging the amicable
termination of the contract as of 31 December 2012. Club E further states that only
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive compensation.
52.
Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed that he signed a
contract with Club E on 30 January 2013, valid as of 31 January 2013 until 30 June
2013. The contract states that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to a
gross fixed remuneration amounting to EUR 1,851,000 for the whole contractual
term. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserted that he received
the amount of EUR 1,006,682 from Club E, as indicated in an e-mail dated 3
September 2013 sent by a representative of Club E to the Claimant / CounterRespondent.
53.
Subsequently, on 5 July 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent concluded a
contract with the Club from Country N, Club M, valid as of the date of signature
until 30 June 2014. Pursuant to the said contract, the Claimant / CounterRespondent is entitled to the amount of 40,000 as weekly salary. According to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the contractual remuneration with Club M is gross
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
12/22
as well and, in this regard, he alleges having received the amount of EUR 743,000
from the Club from Country N.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber
or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this
respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 February
2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2014; hereinafter: the Regulations) the Dispute Resolution Chamber
would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns
an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Player
from Country B, a Club from Country D and a Club from Country F.
3.
However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 15 par. 2 of
the contract, relating the competence of the NDRC of the Football Association of
Country D, as well as art. 17 par. 6 combined with art. 5 of the labour law of
Country D, stating that under laws and regulations of Country D, employmentrelated disputes fall within the compulsory jurisdiction of the “labor dispute
arbitration commission”.
4.
Equally, the Chamber noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent rejected such
position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter on
the basis of art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players as
well as art. 3 of the FIFA Circular letter no. 1010.
5.
In view of the above, the Chamber first of all referred to the contents of the
employment contract concluded between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, and in particular to art. 15 par. 2 of the
contract according to which “any disputes in respect of matters of football,
discipline, or transfers shall be submitted to the arbitration commission of Football
Association of Country D, and the arbitral award shall be final (when the subject
matter of the dispute is of a domestic variety). Any other dispute of a more
international nature, involving for example any international transfer or any
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
13/22
matters which falls under the ambit of any FIFA regulations, shall be submitted to
the arbitration committee of FIFA, and FIFA’s decision is final”.
6.
In this respect, the DRC was of the firm opinion that the present matter regards an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension, i.e. a Player from
Country B, a Club from Country D and a Club from Country F, rather than with
domestic factors as sustained by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s narrow
interpretation of art. 15 par. 2 of the contract. In this respect, the Chamber further
observed that there is no evidence that the parties had actually intended to restrict
the application of this contractual clause to these particular topics. Equally, the
Chamber highlighted that the clause explicitly mentions that FIFA is competent for
the settlement of disputes. Hence, the members of the DRC concluded that, in
accordance with art. 15 par. 2 of the contract, the parties had agreed upon FIFA’s
dispute resolution system in case of potential disputes.
7.
As a result, the DRC decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argument
pertaining to the competence of the NDRC of the Football Association of Country D
should be rejected.
8.
However, the Chamber also noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held
that employment-related disputes in Country D are of the “compulsory jurisdiction
of Labour-dispute Arbitration Commission” and that, as a result, the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent should have lodged his claim in front of the Labour-dispute
Arbitration Commission. After a thorough analysis of the documentation provided
by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Chamber concluded that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not been able to prove that employmentrelated disputes in Country D are of the “compulsory jurisdiction of Labour-dispute
Arbitration Commission”, in particular referring to the fact that art. 5 of the Labour
Law of Country D on Mediation and Arbitration explicitly states that an application
for arbitration may be made.
9.
In view of the foregoing consideration, the Chamber fails to understand the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s line of argumentation when it i) has agreed upon
the competence of the arbitration committee of the Football Association of Country
D for national disputes and ii) has agreed upon the competence of FIFA for
international disputes. With these considerations in mind, the Chamber is of the
view that, at the moment of signing the relevant employment contract, the parties
had clearly agreed upon football dispute resolution in order to have their potential
disputes settled.
10.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC wishes to emphasise that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent relied in good faith on the content of art. 15 par. 2 of the
contract when he lodged his claim in front of FIFA, which article granted him the
possibility to refer matters to FIFA. Equally, it is the Chamber’s view that the
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
14/22
Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to explain why it had agreed upon the
football dispute resolution system of FIFA (or even of the Football Association of
Country D for domestic matters), if indeed employment-related disputes are of the
compulsory competence of a national body in Country D.
11.
Subsequently, the Chamber addressed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
allegation pertaining to the exclusive jurisdiction clause, inter alia referred to in art.
17 par. 6 of the contract according to which “matters uncovered in this contract
shall be managed in accordance with the laws, regulations, rules of Country D and
relevant provisions of FIFA and Football Association of Country D”. The Chamber
concluded that such clause is not, as alleged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant,
a clause of choice of forum, but rather a choice of law. Furthermore, the said clause,
while referring to the laws, regulations and rules of Country D, also specifically
refers to “the relevant provisions of FIFA”.
12.
Consequently, the DRC affirmed that art. 17 par. 6 of the contract does not provide
either for the exclusive jurisdiction of the domestic Labour-dispute Arbitration
Commission in case of dispute between the parties to the contract.
13.
As a result, the Chamber established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
objection towards the competence of FIFA has to be rejected and that the DRC is
competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations, to adjudicate on the
present matter.
14.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analysed which edition of the
Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations (editions 2012 and 2014) and considering that the claim in front of FIFA
was lodged on 11 February 2013, the 2012 edition of said Regulations is applicable
to the present matter as to the substance.
15.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber
started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments
and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence which it considers pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
16.
The Chamber first of all duly noted that on 1 January 2012, the Claimant / CounterRespondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant entered into an employment
contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2013.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
15/22
17.
The DRC further observed that, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on
31 December 2012, the parties signed a termination agreement by means of which
they declared having no disputes and, on 1 January 2013, concluded a
supplementary agreement by means of which the parties agreed upon the
termination of the contract as from 10 January 2013, as well as the payment by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the amount of EUR 1,785,380 corresponding to
outstanding amounts based on the contract and the amount of EUR 1,000,000 as
compensation by 10 January 2013.
18.
Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on
the other hand, held that the termination agreement was actually signed on 25
January 2013 and, therefore, superseded the supplementary agreement so that the
parties have no dispute, in the sense that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
renounced the amounts set forth in the supplementary agreement in exchange of
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant waiving its right to claim any amount on the
subsequent transfer of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to a new club.
19.
At this stage of the procedure, the DRC deemed it appropriate to recall the content
of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a
right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In this respect,
the DRC was of the firm opinion that it could not be established that the
termination agreement was signed subsequently to the supplementary agreement.
In this regard, the DRC further underlined that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
did not provide any other piece of evidence that could sufficiently prove that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent had, indeed, signed the termination agreement on
25 January 2013. What is more, the members of the Chamber posed the question
that, if it was the case, what is the reason to call the second agreement
“supplementary agreement” if it was signed before the termination agreement.
20.
In view of the aforementioned, the DRC established that the Respondent / CounterClaimant did not sufficiently substantiate its allegations regarding the signing of a
termination agreement subsequently to the supplementary agreement, and thus,
rejected the argument of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in this respect. The
members of the Chamber thus agreed that the termination agreement was signed
on 31 December 2012 and that the supplementary agreement was signed on 1
January 2013.
21.
As a result, the DRC concluded that the effective date of termination of the contract
by mutual consent was 10 January 2013 as per the supplementary agreement. In
addition and in this context, the DRC concurred that the amounts foreseen in the
said supplementary agreement were thus to be paid by 10 January 2013 by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
16/22
22.
In this respect, the Chamber observed that it had remained uncontested by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the amount of EUR 2,785,000, set forth in the
supplementary agreement, had remained unpaid. The Chamber further noted that,
on 21 January 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent put the club in default for
the non-payment of said amount, the payment of which was postponed on two
occasions by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
23.
In view of the above, the DRC concluded that it did not find any valid reason or any
sufficient evidence for the non-payment of the amount of EUR 2,785,380 and,
therefore, it could be established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had
failed to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the amount as agreed upon
between the parties in the supplementary agreement dated 1 January 2013. At this
point, the members of the Chamber went on to deliberate the consequences of the
failure of payment by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
24.
To this end, the DRC referred to art. 2 in fine of the supplementary agreement
which stipulates that “If the payment is not made at this precise date the contract
will be considered terminated January 10, 2013 by party A [the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant], salary shall be due from January 1 to January 10, 2013 and this
shall constitute a material breach of the contract by Party A [the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant]”. In this regard, the DRC was of the opinion that such clause
implies that in case of a breach of the supplementary agreement, i.e. in case of nonpayment of the relevant amount within the stated time limit, the employment
contract becomes enforceable again and, therefore, the Claimant / CounterRespondent should be entitled to claim amounts based on the employment
contract. In other words, the members of the Chamber stressed that, by drafting the
aforementioned art. 2 of the supplementary agreement as it reads, the clear
intention of the parties was to turn back to the employment contract if the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not comply with its obligations as per the
supplementary agreement.
25.
As a consequence, the DRC decided that the counter-claim of the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant had to be rejected and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
was entitled to claim from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant amounts based on
the contract signed on 1 January 2012.
26.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant must, firstly, fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract,
in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. Consequently,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent the remuneration that was outstanding at the time
of the termination, i.e. 10 January 2013. Based on the allegations and the
documentation provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, and in the absence
of the contrary by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the DRC came to the
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
17/22
conclusion that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable for the payment of the
outstanding salaries amounting to EUR 1,772,730, i.e. 90% of his salary for
September 2012 and his salary in full from October to December 2012.
27.
With regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for unpaid bonuses, the
DRC referred to the contract, the supplementary agreement and the allegations of
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in this respect, determining that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent had substantiated said request while the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant had not disputed such allegations. Consequently, the Chamber
decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent the amount of USD 14,000 as per art. 5 par. 3 of the contract.
28.
Regarding the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim pertaining to rent expenses,
the DRC recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof as set forth in art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. In this context, and in the absence of documentation
provided in this respect and considering that the contract at the basis of the dispute
does not contain any specific amount to be covered by the Respondent / CounterClaimant, the Chamber decided to reject this request from the Claimant / CounterRespondent.
29.
As a consequence, the DRC decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable
to pay the total amount of EUR 1,772,730 and USD 14,000 to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent corresponding to the outstanding remuneration as per the
employment contract, up to 10 January 2013.
30.
In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for
interest and in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence, the DRC decided
to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the due date of each
payment.
31.
In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1
of the Regulations, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive
compensation for breach of contract from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
32.
In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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
Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
18/22
33.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means
of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this respect, the Chamber
acknowledged that the contract contained the following provisions:
Article 9 par. 4 of the contract foresees that “if the contract is intentionally
terminated by Party B [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent], Party B [the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent] shall compensate Party A [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]
with Euro 7 million”.
Article 9 par. 5 (2) of the contract further stipulates that “Party B [the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent] may inform Party A [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] to
terminate the contract if Party A [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] (…) fails to
make payments due under this Agreement, if said failure is not remedied within 28
days of notification thereof; provided that, all the amount due according to the
Contract shall be immediately payable to Party B [the Claimant / CounterRespondent]”.
34.
In addition, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent based his
claim for compensation for breach of contract on the principle of reciprocity and
the interpretation a contrario of art. 9 par. 4 of the contract as well as art. 9 par. 5
(2) of the contract.
35.
On account of the aforementioned, the DRC reasoned that, in accordance with art.
9 par. 5 (2) of the contract, if the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the
contract with just cause due to unpaid remuneration, he would receive an amount
corresponding to the value of his remuneration as from the date of termination of
the contract until the date of its normal expiry. Whereas, in accordance with art. 9
par. 4 of the contract, if the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would terminate the
contract without just cause, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would receive
compensation in the amount of EUR 7,000,000. In this respect, the Chamber was
eager to emphasise that the latter clauses are disproportionate. This is, they would
in principle allow for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on the one hand, to
receive the fixed amount of EUR 7,000,000 in any case where the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent would be found to have terminated the contract without just
cause and irrespective of when the termination would occur. On the other hand, in
case the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would terminate the contract with just
cause, he would be entitled to receive an amount which would depend on the
moment when he would terminate the contract.
36.
With the aforementioned in mind, the DRC decided that it cannot apply the
compensation clauses under the contract in view of the fact that they establish
disproportionate rights for the parties to the contract. Consequently, the deciding
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
19/22
body concluded that art. 9 par.5 (2) of the contract must be disregarded in the
assessment of the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent.
37.
Therefore, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in
application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 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. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into
account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation
for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis
taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.
38.
In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their
attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion
was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber
deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and
the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
39.
The Chamber pointed out that the contract signed by the Claimant / CounterRespondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was to run for another 12
months, i.e. until 31 December 2013, after the termination of the contract occurred.
Furthermore, the Chamber understood that for this relevant period, the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive a total salary of EUR 7,000,000.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 7,000,000 serves as
the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
40.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant / CounterRespondent 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, 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 Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s general obligation to mitigate his
damages.
41.
The Chamber recalled that, on 30 January 2013, the Claimant signed an
employment contract with Club E, valid until 30 June 2013, in accordance with
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
20/22
which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was to receive a total gross fixedremuneration of EUR 1,851,000 during the said period of time. Subsequently, on 5
July 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed an employment contract with
Club M valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2014, in accordance with
which he was entitled until 31 December 2013 to a gross remuneration of 1,040,000
equivalent to EUR 1,400,000. The DRC further noted that the Claimant / CounterRespondent provided documentary evidence stating that the Claimant / CounterRespondent effectively received the amount of EUR 1,006,682 from Club E.
42.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned, the DRC determined that
the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 4,593,318 as compensation for breach
of contract in the case at hand.
43.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations by in the present
matter by establishing that the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is thus
partially accepted and any further claims lodged by the Claimant / CounterRespondent are rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
outstanding remuneration amounting to EUR 1,772,730 and USD 14,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% p.a. as of 31 August 2012 on the amount of USD 2,000;
b. 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2012 on the amount of USD 12,000;
c. 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2012 on the amount of EUR 409,095;
d. 5% p.a. as of 31 October 2012 on the amount of EUR 454,545;
e. 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2012 on the amount of EUR 454,545;
f. 5% p.a. as of 31 December 2012 on the amount of EUR 454,545.
5.
In the event that the amounts foreseen in point 4. plus interest are not paid within
the stated time limit by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and
a formal decision.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
21/22
6.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 4,593,318.
7.
In the event that the amount set forth in point 6. is not paid by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will
fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration
and a formal decision.
8.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
9.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances
are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment
received.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
22/22
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to
the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain
all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of
which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit
for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and
legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
E-Mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D/ Club E, Country F
23/22