Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player A
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Player A, Country A
Represented by Lawyer A
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Club A, Country B
Represented by Lawyer B
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
Club B, Country C
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 February 2024, the Country A Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant, the CounterRespondent 1 or the Player) and the Country B Club A (hereinafter: the Respondent, the
Counterclaimant or the Club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract)
valid as from its date of signature until 30 June 2025.
2.
In accordance with articles 3-I and 3-II of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay
the Claimant as follows:
“I. 2023/2024 SEASON:
MONTHLY SALARY:
The yearly salary of the Player for season 2023/2024 shall be EUR 450,000 (four-hundred and
[sic] thousand Euros NET) totally. The amount (450,000 EUR) shall be divided into 5 (five) equal
instalments. So, the Player's monthly salary shall be EUR 90,000 (ninety-thousand Euros NET)
each month (February 2024 – June 2024).
(The amount of EUR 90,000 (ninety-thousand Euros NET) corresponding to the player's first
salary will be given as a bank cheque dated 15.02.2024).
• All payments mentioned above will only be valid if the player has a valid contract with the club
on the payment date.
II. 2024/2025 SEASON:
MONTHLY SALARY:
The yearly salary of the Player for season 2024/2025 shall be EUR 900,000 (nine hundred
thousand Euro NET) totally. The amount (900,000 EUR) shall be divided into 10 (ten) equal
instalments. So, the Player's monthly salary shall be EUR 90,000 (ninety thousand Euro NET)
each month (September 2024 - June 2025).
• All payments mentioned above will only be valid if the player has a valid contract with the club
on the payment date.”
3.
In addition, article 3-IV of the Contract stipulated the following:
“The Club shall purchase 5 (five) business class return air tickets from City A to City B for each
season. The Club shall pay to the Player totally EUR 15.000 (fifteen thousand Euro) for each
season to the Player for accommodation, car, and other expenses. This payment shall be divided
into 10 ten equal instalments. Club shall pay EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred fifty Euro)
each month (from September until June) on the 30 of every month. This payment shall be made
only if Club and Player has a valid Contract on the payment date. To be clear, for the 2023-2024
season, since the Player is transferred in a half season Club shall pay to the Player totally 7.500
(seven thousand five hundred Euro) for accommodation, car and other expenses divided into 5
(five) equal instalments which is 1.500 Euro each month (from February 2024 until June 2024)”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
4.
Furthermore, articles 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 and 3-11 of the Contract read as follows:
“1- All amounts written in this Contract are NET payments.
2- Season 2023/2024 Guaranteed Bonus: EUR 100,000 (one hundred thousand Euros NET). This
bonus shall be paid to the Player on 30 June 2024.
3- Season 2024/2025 Guaranteed Bonus: EUR 200,000 (two hundred thousand Euros NET). This
bonus shall be paid to the Player on 30 June 2025.”
[…]
11- Each monthly salary shall be paid to the Player until the fifteenth day of the month following
the month, for which the payment is made.”
5.
Lastly, article 3-26 of the Contract read as follows:
“The Player is obliged to attend the training sessions and training camps, to be determined by
the Club (including place and dates) and shall strictly abide by the related instructions of the
Authorized Person. The Player shall be ready to attend and/or participate in every domestic and
international competition including both friendly and official games. The Player is obliged to
attend any scheduled programs which will be determined by the Club, provided that the Player
has been notified in good time.”
6.
On 4 March 2024, the Respondent paid the Player’s February 2024 salary, in the amount of
EUR 90,000.
7.
On 25 May 2024, the Claimant signed the following declaration (hereinafter: the
Declaration):
“[…] I, Player A, hereby authorize the direct payment by my employer Club A of the
accomodation expenses at the Hotel A in City B, for a total amount of 1.789.692,73 TL (51492€)
The portion of the hotel fees exceeding the amount of Euro 20.000,00 (+/- Euro 31492€) specified
in my contract as hotel allowance, may be deducted from my salary.
For the avoidance of doubt, no further or other deduction of my salaries, as the aforementioned,
can be made from my salary by Club A without my prior written approval. […]”
8.
On 7 June 2024, the Player put the Club in default and requested payment within 15 days
of EUR 460,000, corresponding to the monthly salaries of March 2024 to June 2024, as well
as the guaranteed bonus for the 2023-2024 season.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
9.
On 18 June 2024, the Club corresponded with the Player’s agent via WhatsApp in order to
conclude a potential agreement regarding the outstanding remuneration.
10. On 19 June 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s default notice dated 7 June 2024, noting
that only the salaries of March-April 2024, totalling EUR 180,000 were overdue and,
considering that the Player has signed the Declaration which deducts EUR 38,992 from his
salaries, the outstanding amount was EUR 147,008.
11. On 21 June 2024, the Club remitted EUR 60,000 to the Player.
12. On 24 June 2024, the Club remitted EUR 96,000 to the Player, accompanied by the following
correspondence:
“[…] the remaining amount of the Player's payments so far is 147.008 Euros.
Club paid 60.000 Euro on 21.06.2024 and 96.000 Euro on 24.06.2024 (today). You may find the
payment receipts on Annex-1. As you can see Club already paid 156.000 Euro which is higher
than the amount Club owes.
As a result, The [sic] Player has no remaining receivables from the Club, regarding to notice sent
by the Player. Even though, according to FIFA regulation article 14/bis clearly states that in order
to terminate the contract with just cause, “club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two
monthly salaries on their due dates”. Since there is no debt for 2 monthly salaries are
outstanding, we kindly inform you that in case of any termination, it shall be a termination
without just cause. […]”
13. On 30 June 2024, the Club sent a correspondence to the Player, noting his unjustified
absence at the scheduled pre-season training session on 29 June 2024.
14. On 1 July 2024, the Club sent the following correspondence to the Player:
“[…] It has been determined that, although you were in the camp squad, you did not participate
in pre-season camp training sessions without permission, held at Hotel B field located at XXX,
on 29.06.2024 and 30.06.2024. Two reports has [sic] been recorded at this matter and has
been shared with you.
Your above-mentioned action have [sic] clearly violated Articles 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.10, 7.1.25,7.4of
the Club’s Disciplinary Regulations.
In accordance with the relevant articles of the Club’s Disciplinary Regulation, you have been
referred to discipline before our club.
We request that you submit your defense regarding the above mentioned [sic] issues and your
intentional action to our Club within 48 hours to info@xxx or in writing. If
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
you do not submit a defense within the time limit that given to you, you will be deemed to have
waived your right to defend.
Since our team continues its pre-season camp at the address mentioned, we request you to
attend the camp immediately, otherwise we warn you that all legal remedies will be taken
against you, including fines and termination of the contract. […]”
15. On 5 July 2024, the Player terminated the Contract with the Club.
16. On the same day, i.e. 5 July 2024, the Country B Football Association (hereinafter: the
Country B Football Association) acknowledged that the Contract had been terminated.
17. On 8 July 2024, the Player signed an employment contract with the Country C Club B
(hereinafter: Club B or the Counter-Respondent 2) valid as from its date of signature until 30
June 2026.
18. According to the said employment contract with Club B, the Player is entitled to a salary
of Currency Country B 18,900,000 net per season, to be paid in 20 instalments of Currency
Country B 945,000 net, i.e. from 15 July 2024 to 31 May 2025 and from 15 July 2025 to 31
May 2026.
19. On 12 July 2024, Club B uploaded the necessary information and documentation on the
Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS) and asked the Country C Football
Association (hereinafter: the Country C Football Association) to request the International
Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: the ITC) before the Country B Football Association.
20. On 19 July 2024, the Club refused the issuance of the ITC of the Player, noting that the latter
had terminated the Contract unilaterally and without just cause. The transfer instruction
was cancelled.
21. On 24 July 2024, Club B initiated new transfer instruction and uploaded the necessary
information and documentation on TMS to request the ITC of the Player, which was again
rejected by the Country B Football Association on 25 July 2024.
22. On 29 July 2024, Club B requested, through the Country C Football Association, the
intervention of FIFA to release a provisional ITC to the Player. The player was registered
by the Country C Football Association on 30 July 2024.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
II. Proceedings before FIFA
23. On 19 August 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1
24. In his claim, the Player argued that he terminated the Contract with just cause as the Club
failed to pay his monthly salaries of May-June 2024 amounting to EUR 180,000, his
guaranteed bonus of EUR 100,000 due on 30 June 2024, and refused to provide him with
flight tickets to return to Country B for the start of the pre-season 2024-2025.
25. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
“FIRST – To uphold the present Claim in full;
SECOND – To confirm that the Player had grounds to breach the Contract with just cause;
THIRD – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 90,000 NET due as outstanding salary due for
May, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 16 June 2024 until the date of effective payment;
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 100,000 NET due as outstanding a Guaranteed
Bonus for the 2023/2024 season, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
FIFTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 90,000 NET due as outstanding salary due for
June, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a.as of 6 July 2024 until the date of effective payment;
SIXTH – To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 728,956 NET due as (Mitigated and Additional)
compensation for the breach of the Contract, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6
July 2024 until the date of effective payment;
Alternatively, and only whether the above paragraph is not accepted:
SIXTH - To order the Club to pay the Player EUR 458,956 NET due as (Mitigated and Additional)
compensation for the breach of the Contract, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a.as of 6 July
2024 until the date of effective payment;
SEVENTH – To ban the Club from registering any new players, either national or internationally,
for 2 entire and consecutive registration periods;
EIGHTH – To open the proceedings regarding the present dispute and notify the Club
immediately; and
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
NINETH – To confirm that the ongoing proceedings are free of any costs.”
b. Position of the Respondent / Counterclaimant
26. It is the position of the Respondent that it did not fail to pay the Claimant two monthly
salaries on their due dates, i.e. until the fifteenth of the following month for which the
payment is made, and therefore the Claimant has terminated the Contract without just
cause pursuant to art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
27. In this regard, the Respondent argued that the monthly salaries of May-June 2024 and the
guaranteed bonus were not due on the date of the Claimant’s default notice dated 7 June
2024, contrary to the assertion of the Claimant. Therefore, the Respondent held that it
complied with the said default notice as it remitted the due amounts to the Claimant, i.e.
the monthly salaries of March-April 2024, within the deadline of 15 days.
28. In fact, the Club argued that there had not been a time during the term of the Contract that
it had failed to comply with a 15-day deadline granted by the Player in a default notice for
the payment of more than two monthly salaries.
29. In this regard, the Club noted that, in its correspondence dated 19 June 2024, it pointed out
to the Player that only the salaries of March-April 2024 were overdue and that if the Player
does not respond, his silence will be interpreted as an acceptance of the calculation, which
is what occurred. Accordingly, the Club noted that it proceeded with a payment of EUR
60,000 on 21 June 2024 and a payment of EUR 96,000 on 24 June 2024.
30. In support of its position, the Club relied on art. 6 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which
stipulate that:
“Where the particular nature of the transaction or the circumstances are such that express
acceptance cannot reasonably be expected, the contract is deemed to have been concluded if
the offer is not rejected within a reasonable time.”
31. In addition, the Club argued that it covered the payment of the flight tickets for the Player
and his family from Country B to Country A. With respect to the return of the Player and
his family to Country B from Country A, the Club argued that its mere failure to provide
the flight tickets cannot be considered a major breach of the Contract that renders the
employment relationship non-continuable, based on the ultima ratio principle. In this
regard, the Club noted that the Player did not give a chance to the Club to rectify such
breach before terminating the Contract.
32. In continuation, the Club referred to the Club’s correspondence with the Player’s agent via
WhatsApp to argue that the Player’s refusal to attend pre-season training was not only
irrelevant to the issue of the flight tickets, but was purely motivated by financial reasons.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
It is also the position of the Club that the payment of the Player’s outstanding remuneration
would not have sufficed for the Player to undertake his duties and attend training, as his
agent clearly expressed that if he is not personally paid, then the Player will not undertake
the pre-season training.
33. In particular, the Club referred to the following correspondence from the Player’s agent:
“if he doesn’t receive all the money requested in the notice and my commission he won’t go to
the camp!!
let’s see if Player A will be there in the pre-season!!!!
You can pay him okay, pay the debts for him, it’s not a problem. But I told you, and I talk again,
if you pay him it’s not a problem. But in the first day, second day, third day, he won’t be there in
the pre-season. Forget it. It’s not only business, it’s only respect. I deserve this respect.
it’s not a problem, I will fight you, I will fight you, it’s not a problem. you want a fight? I want to
give a solution for this but I need to receive. Not for the next season, not next month, in august,
September ... I need to receive my money. Player A need to receive his money. Only this.”
34. In addition, the Club argued that the Player contravened article 3-26 of the Contract by not
participating in both the pre-season camp and a subsequent training session.
35. Lastly, the Club held that Club B, as an instigator, has influenced the termination of the
Contract by the Player.
36. Considering the foregoing, the Respondent lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant and
requested that it be determined that the Claimant breached the Contract without just
cause and that it is condemned, alongside Club B, to pay EUR 2,245,000 as compensation,
plus 5% interest. The Respondent also requested that the Claimant and Club B be
sanctioned according to art. 17 of the Regulations and art. 7 of FIFA Code of Ethics.
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1
37. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Claimant argued that on 5 July 2024, i.e. the date he
terminated the Contract, his outstanding remuneration totaled EUR 184,508, which fulfils
the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations as the said amount is greater than two
monthly salaries and the Club was put in default at least 15 days before 5 July 2024.
38. Notwithstanding the above, the Player noted that the Club never managed to pay any of
the monthly salaries, guaranteed bonuses or allowances on their due dates, and that
considering the repeated breaches and financial violations it could no longer be expected
from him to continue to be bound by the Contract. Consequently, it is the position of the
Claimant that assuming that the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations are not met,
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
there is nothing that prevented him from terminating the Contract with just cause in
accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations.
39. In addition, the Player argued that the demand from the Club for him to return from his
annual holidays without providing him with the contractually agreed flight tickets is an
abusive conduct.
40. Considering the foregoing, the Claimant requested to set aside the counterclaim filed by
the Respondent.
d. Reply to the counterclaim of the Counter-Respondent 2
41. Despite being invited to do so, Club B failed to reply to the counterclaim lodged by the
Respondent.
e. Additional comments of the Respondent / Counterclaimant
42. In light of the interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council for
the Regulations and the Procedural Rules, on 5 February 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat
invited the Respondent to amend its position, should it wish to do so, exclusively in relation
to the possible consequences of the application of the interim regulatory framework to this
case.
43. In this context, the FIFA General Secretariat received a correspondence from the
Respondent in reply thereto, in which it outlined the events in chronological order and
argued that the Claimant terminated the Contract without just cause and that Club B
played an important role as an instigator in the termination of the employment
relationship.
44. In particular, the Respondent argued that only 3 days after the termination of the Contract,
i.e. on 8 July 2024, the Claimant signed a new employment contract with Club B. In this
regard, the Respondent held that it is not possible to finalize an intercontinental transfer
within 3 days, especially in consideration of the flight duration of 15 hours from Country B
to Country C.
45. In addition, the Respondent argued that before it received the ITC request on 19 July, and
before the deadline to respond to it had expired, the transfer of the Player to Club B was
already announced on its official Instagram page, i.e. on 13 July 2024.
f. Additional comments of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1
46. In light of the interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council for
the Regulations and the Procedural Rules, on 5 February 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat
invited the Claimant to amend his position, should he wish to do so, exclusively in relation
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
to the possible consequences of the application of the interim regulatory framework to this
case.
47. In this context, the FIFA General Secretariat received a correspondence from the Claimant,
in which he maintained his position.
g. Additional comments of the Counter-Respondent 2
48. In light of the interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council for
the Regulations and the Procedural Rules, on 5 February 2025, the FIFA General Secretariat
invited Club B to amend its position, should it wish to do so, exclusively in relation to the
possible consequences of the application of the interim regulatory framework to this case.
49. Despite being invited to do so, Club B failed to provide its additional comments.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
50. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) analyzed
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 19 August 2024 and submitted for decision
on 27 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
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.
51. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (January
2025 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 player and a Country B club.
52. Subsequently, the Chamber analyzed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
53. As to the Respondent’s request for relief that the Claimant and Club B be sanctioned
pursuant to art. 7 of FIFA Code of Ethics, the Chamber concluded that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal shall only adjudicate on any of the cases
described in article 22 paragraphs 1 a), b), d), e) and f) of the Regulations and does not have
jurisdiction to impose sanctions under the FIFA Code of Ethics.
b. Burden of proof
54. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
55. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
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
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
56. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly dispute the existence of just cause for the early termination of the
employment relationship by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain
financial obligations by the Respondent as per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis
of the Regulations as invoked by the Claimant.
57. The Chamber first noted that, according to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with
just cause due to outstanding remuneration. Regarding the position of the Respondent,
the Chamber observed that it filed a counterclaim against the Claimant and the CounterRespondent 2 and argued that it did not fail to pay two monthly salaries on their due dates,
thus the Claimant terminated the Contract without just cause.
58. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
59. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
60. In the present matter, the Chamber took note that on 7 June 2024, the Claimant did put
the Respondent in default and requested payment within 15 days of EUR 460,000,
corresponding to the monthly salaries of March 2024 to June 2024, as well as the
guaranteed bonus for the season 2023-2024 which was due on 30 June 2024.
61. Considering the foregoing and article 3-11 of the Contract, which stipulates that each
monthly salary must be paid until the fifteenth day of the month following the month for
which the payment is made, the Chamber was of the opinion that the monthly salaries of
March and April 2024 in the amount of EUR 180,000 were outstanding on the day of the
Player’s default notice, i.e. 7 June 2024. However, the Chamber recalled that the Player had
agreed in the Declaration a reduction of his salary in the amount of EUR 31,492.
62. Having stated the above, the Chamber established that on the day of the Player’s default
notice, i.e. 7 June 2024, his outstanding remuneration amounted to EUR 148,508, which
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
corresponds to less than two monthly salaries. In addition, the Chamber observed that on
23 June 2024, following the expiration of the 15-day deadline granted by the Player in his
default notice, the Club had failed to fully comply with its financial obligations as it only
remitted the Player EUR 60,000 on 21 June 2024.
63. In light of the above considerations, notably that the outstanding remuneration of the
Player corresponded to less than two monthly salaries on the day of his default notice, the
Chamber concluded that the requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations were not met.
64. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 14 of the
Regulations, "A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind
(either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause.
In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which it can no longer be reasonably
expected in good faith from a party to continue a contractual relationship."
65. Generally, as stated in art. 14 of the Regulations, a premature termination may be issued
only in circumstances in which it can no longer, reasonably and in good faith, be expected
from the party issuing the termination to continue the respective contractual relationship.
In other words, and in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, the
termination of a contract should always be an action of last resort, having regard to the
individual facts and circumstances of each case. In other words, as consistently held by this
Chamber, a premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio
measure.
66. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that during the employment relationship, the
Respondent had repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its
contractual obligations towards the Claimant. In particular, the Chamber noted that:
(i)
regardless of the wording of article 3-11 of the Contract, the Player’s
monthly salary of February 2024 had to be paid with a bank cheque dated
15 February 2025 as stipulated in article 3-I of the Contract, but was in fact
paid on 4 March 2024;
(ii)
the Player’s monthly salary of March 2024 was due on 15 April 2024, but
was in fact paid in full on 24 June 2024;
(iii)
the Player’s monthly salary of April 2024 was due on 15 May 2024 and that
it had in fact never been paid in full, as there is until now a balance of EUR
24,000 net;
(iv)
the Player’s monthly salary of May 2024 was due on 15 June 2024 and that
it had in fact never been paid;
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
(v)
the Player’s guaranteed bonus of EUR 100,000 was due on 1 July 2024 and
that it had in fact never been paid;
(vi)
that the Club did not provide the Player flights tickets to return to
Country B as stipulated in 3-IV of the Contract;
(vii)
that the Club did not dispute owing the Player the above outstanding
remuneration;
(viii)
that the fundamental terms and conditions which formed the basis of the
Contract were no longer respected by the Respondent, despite having
been put in default on 7 June 2024, i.e. one month before the termination
of the Contract;
(ix)
that the Respondent bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied
with the financial terms of the Contract, but failed to do so; and
(x)
that the Player has discharged his burden of proof in demonstrating that
the Club’s breach was sufficiently significant as to justify an ultima ratio
measure, permitting him to terminate the Contract.
67. In fact, the Chamber highlighted that on 5 July 2024, the date of termination of the Contract
by the Player, outstanding remuneration amounted to more than two monthly salaries. In
particular, the Chamber observed that, on said date, the outstanding remuneration of the
Player totalled EUR 182,508 net, i.e. the balance of the monthly salary of April 2024 in the
amount of EUR 24,000 net, the monthly salary of May 2024 in the amount of EUR 90,000
net, the guaranteed bonus of EUR 100,000 net which became due on 1 July 2024, minus
the Player’s salary deduction of EUR 31,492 net pursuant to the Declaration.
68. Consequently, on account of the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that the
Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract based on art. 14 of the
Regulations.
69. Lastly, the Chamber held that the foregoing finding, i.e. that the Claimant had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract, necessarily leads to the conclusion that the
counterclaim of the Respondent is rejected.
ii. Consequences
70. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of the Contract committed by the Respondent.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
71. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination of
the employment relationship, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, are
equivalent to more than two monthly salaries under the Contract.
72. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
representing the remuneration to which he was entitled under the Contract at the moment
of its termination, i.e. EUR 272,508 net (i.e. the monthly salaries from February 2024 to June
2024 amounting to EUR 450,000 net, plus the guaranteed bonus of EUR 100,000 net, minus
the payments of the Club totalling EUR 246,000 net and the Player’s salary deduction of
EUR 31,492 net).
73. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
• Over the monthly salary of May 2024 in the amount of EUR 90,000 net, as from
16 June 2024 until the date of effective payment.
• Over the guaranteed bonus in the amount of EUR 100,000 net, as from 1 July 2024
until the date of effective payment.
• Over the monthly salary of June 2024 in the amount of EUR 82,508 net, as from 5
July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
74. 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 employment contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage
suffered, according to the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts
and circumstances of each case and with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned.
75. 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.
76. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17, par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the Player by the Club shall
be equal to the residual value of the Contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
Player signed a new employment contract following the termination of his previous one (cf.
art. 17 par. 1 lit. i)).
77. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the residual value of the Contract amounts to EUR 1,180,000 net (i.e. the
monthly salaries from July 2024 until June 2025 totalling EUR 1,080,000 net and the
guaranteed bonus of EUR 100,000 net due on 30 June 2025). However, in accordance with
the Claimant’s request as well as the principle ne ultra petita, the Chamber decided that the
amount of EUR 1,100,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for the breach of the Contract
78. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.
79. Indeed, the Player found employment with Club B. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player is entitled to a salary of Currency of Country C
18,900,000 net per season, to be paid in 20 instalments of Currency of Country C 945,000
net, i.e. from 15 July 2024 to 31 May 2025 and from 15 July 2025 to 31 May 2026.
80. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total
amount of Currency of Country C 18,900,000 net, which corresponds to EUR 965,295 net
as of the date of the termination of the Contract, i.e. 5 July 2024.
81. 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 confirmed that the Contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e. overdue payables, and therefore decided
that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation. In this respect, the DRC decided
to award the amount of additional compensation of USD EUR 270,000 net, i.e. three times
the monthly remuneration of the Player under the Contract.
82. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 404,605 net to the Claimant (i.e. EUR 1,100,000 net minus EUR 965,395 net plus EUR
270,000 net), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
83. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 6 July 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
84. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 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.
85. 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.
86. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24
par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
87. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that by means of a decision of the Football Tribunal
passed on date 23 September 2024 and notified on 4 November 2024, a transfer ban has
been imposed on the Respondent pursuant to art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, namely in
the case FPSD-14997.
88. Accordingly, the Chamber established that in casu art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not
apply, insofar as in case the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the
application of a further ban from registering any new players on top of the one already
being served by the Respondent would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations,
in particularly the enforcement mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
89. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest is
not paid within 30 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and formal decision.
90. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
d. Costs
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant, Club A, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 the
following amounts:
- EUR 272,508 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 90,000 net as from 16 June 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 100,000 net as from 1 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 82,508 net as from 5 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
- EUR 404,605 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
6 July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent 1, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-xxxxx
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 21