Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 07 April 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player B
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
COLUCCI Michele (Italy), member
PERLEMUTER Jerome (France), member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
A, Country A
Represented by
RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
B, Country B
Represented by
Page 2
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 19 January 2019, the Country B player B (hereinafter: the Player) and the Country A club A
(hereinafter: the Club) entered into an employment contract valid from 20 January 2019 and 19
July 2022 (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
Clause 4 of the Contract reads as follows:
“Item 4: Obligations of the [Club]:
The Club shall pay to the player during this contract the amount of Euro 6,100,012 will be paid as
a following:
1- From 20/01/2019 To 19/07/2020:
1/1: EUR 2,300,012
1/2: The Club shall pay to the Player an amount of EUR 100,000. the Club shall pay this amount
24/01/2019.
1/3: The Club shall pay to the Player an amount of EUR 700,000. the Club shall pay this amount
31/07/2019.
1/4: Payment of a monthly salary of EUR 83,334 to the second party at the end of every Gregorian
month.
2- From 20/07/2020 To 19/07/2021 :
2/1 EUR 1,800,000
2/2: The Club shall pay to the Player an amount of EUR 350,000. the Club shall pay this amount
31/08/2020.
2/3: The Club shall pay to the Player an amount of EUR 250,000. the Club shall pay this amount
31/01/2021.
2/4 Payment of a monthly salary of EUR 100,000 to the second party at the end of every Gregorian
month.
3- From 20/07/2021 To 19/07/2022:
3/1: EUR 2,000,000:
3/2: The Club shall pay to the Player an amount of EUR 400,000. the Club shall pay this amount
31/08/2021.
3/3: The Club shall pay to the Player an amount of EUR 400,000. the Club shall pay this amount
31/01/2022.
3/4: Payment of a monthly salary of EUR 100,000 to the second party at the end of every Gregorian
month”.
3.
On 21 October 2020, the parties signed the “Agreement for Mutual to be Out of Squad List from
21.10.2020 until 05.02.2021” (hereinafter: the First Amendment).
Page 3
4.
On 5 July 2021, the parties signed an “Agreement for Mutual to Reschedule Due Amounts”
(hereinafter: the Second Amendment).
5.
Article 1.3 of the Second Amendment reads as follows:
“The club shall pay to the player his signing fee Euro 250,000 on 31.01.2021 as mentioned in item
2/3, the player and the club accept to reschedule this amount to be paid on or before 10/10/2021.”
6.
Article 1.4 of the Second Amendment reads as follows:
“The club shall pay to the player he signed in fee euro EUR 400,000 on 31.08.2021 one as
mentioned in item 3/2, the player and the club accept to reschedule this amount to be paid on or
before 15.11.2021”.
7.
On 12 October 2021, the parties signed another “Agreement for Mutual to Reschedule Due
Amounts” (hereinafter: the Third Amendment).
8.
Recital D of the Third Amendment reads as follows:
“The Player is on an official leave from the Club since mid-September to assist his young daughter
in the treatment of a serious illness that required hospitalization and will require multiple surgeries
to take place in Country C”
9.
Art. 1.2 of the Third Amendment reads as follows
“The club shall pay to the player his outstanding signing fee Euro 294,445 on 10.10.2021. The
player and the club accept to reschedule this amount to be paid on or before 10.11.2021.”
10. On 15 September 2021, the Player’s daughter was diagnosed with a medical condition which
needed urgent surgery. The Player was granted permission from the Club to travel with his family
to Country C to seek the needed treatment. The Player then left with his family on 16 September
2021. The parties dispute the date he was due to return in that the Club argues it was by 19
September 2021.
11. On 23 September 2021, the Player sent a notice to the Club refuting that he was granted only 3
days and further informing that he never committed to return by such date.
12. On 20 October 2021, the Club sent a letter to the Player which read inter alia as follows:
“The [Club] wishes to confirm that following your departure on 16 September 2021 to escort your
family to Country C for further tests following your daughter's diagnosis, the [Club] agreed to your
request for an absent of 3 days, which at the date of this letter you are yet to return.
Page 4
The [Club] however does understand the circumstances and the strain that this time can have
emotionally, physically and psychologically on you and your family. This being said, under these
circumstances the club is willing to put you on leave without pay for 20 September 2021 with a reevaluation of the situation on 31 October 2021.”
13. On 21 October 2021, the Player replied to the previous correspondence of the Club stating that
as per Recital D of the Third Amendment he was on “official leave”. In addition, the Player stated
as follows:
“there are two – and only two – options from which [the Club] may freely pick from.
Alternative A: The “new agreement” signed last week is valid and enforceable, the Player is on
official leave and the Club remains liable for fully paying his salaries; or
Alternative B: The “new agreement” signed last week is not valid, the Player is not on official leave
(as suggested in the despicable message from today), and the Club is in default towards the Player
for an amount largely exceeding the two month threshold provided by FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players. In this case, if the full payment is not performed within the next 10
(ten) days, the Player will terminate the Contract with just cause and claim for compensation
before FIFA standing committees.”
Again, feel free to opt between respecting the “new agreement” or throwing it away, in which case
we suggest the Club to pay all overdue payables to the Player by 31 October 2021, to avoid the
early termination of the Contract.”
14. On 29 October 2021, the Club replied to the previous correspondence of the Player stating that
nowhere is stated to have an “indefinite” and/or “paid” leave.
15. On 18 November 2021, the Player sent a default notice to the Club, requesting the Club to pay the
outstanding amount of EUR 1,094,445 granting a deadline until 3 December 2021 (i.e. 15 days) to
comply.
16. On 23 November 2021, the Club replied to the previous correspondence of the Player requesting
him to return to Country A by 26 November 2021 and stating that the amounts requested had
fallen due after the Player was on “self-proclaimed” official leave.
17. On 29 November 2021, the Player acknowledged receipt of EUR 100,000 paid by the Club.
18. On 2 December 2021, the Player acknowledged receipt of EUR 263,334 paid by the Club.
19. On 3 December 2021, the Player sent a notice of termination to the Club adducing just cause.
Page 5
II. Proceedings before FIFA
20. On 3 December 2021, the Club filed a claim against the Player before FIFA. Simultaneously, on 6
December 2021, the Player filed a claim against the Club before FIFA. For the sake of good
procedural order, the two claims were consolidated under a single matter filed under ref. FPSDxxxx, with the Player’s parallel claim deemed as a counterclaim for ease of reference.
21. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Club
22. On 3 December 2021, the Club lodged a claim against the Player before FIFA which is summarised
as follows.
23. According to the Club, it has made all payments due to the Player up until 19 September 2021,
the date that the Club had agreed to grant the Player his initial leave.
24. The Club states that “to date the player has been requested on no less than 3 (three) occasions to
return to the club, which he has failed to do. The player has further failed or refused to indicate on
his return or a potential return date. It can be assumed that the player has no intention of returning
to the club but wishes to benefit from receiving his salary.”
25. The Club submits that “in view of all the above and considering the players continuous absence
without authorization from the club. The club hereby wishes to have the player’s contract
terminated with just cause”.
26. Moreover, “the Club deems that the Player shall be compelled to fulfil his obligations as a football
player and perform his obligations as stipulated in the contract.”
27. The Club filed the following requests for relief:
“In light of all of the above, A respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to:
a) Enforce its jurisdiction over the matter;
b) Consider B as guilty for failing to comply with its obligations towards and instructions from A;
c) Consider the player to have been absent without leave for a prolonged period without
permission or valid cause;
d) Declare that the employment contract between the parties be terminated with just cause for A
as of 1 November 2021.
Page 6
e) Order B to bear any and all legal costs and expenses incurred by A in connection with the present
claim.
f) Order B to pay compensation amounting to EUR 800,000 in respect of damages.”
b. Position of the Player
28. On 6 December 2021, the Player filed a claim against the Club which is summarised as follows.
29. The Player argues that during the employment relationship, the Club continuously breached the
Contract by delaying its payment obligations towards the Player and the Player tolerated this
behaviour.
30. The Player states that when it sent the default notice, the Club was in default towards the
payment of his salaries for June, July, August, September, and October 2021, as well as advance
payments originally due on 31 January and 31 August 2021, that had been rescheduled for 10 and
15 November 2021, respectively as per the table below:
31. The Player sustains that such amounts corresponded to EUR 1,094,445 which exceeded the
equivalent to 6.5 monthly salaries of the Player. As the Player salary for the 2021-2022 season
amounted to EUR 2,000,000, it averaged EUR 166,667 per month
32. The Player submits that “even if admitted, ad argumentandum tamtum, that the Player (i) was
absent without official leave since 30 October 2021 and (ii) on unpaid leave until 30 October 2021;
and (iii) that the advance payments originally due on 31 January and 31 August 2021 which were
rescheduled to 10 and 15 November 2021, respectively, were not “due” by the time the Player left
in September, it should be noted that the Club was indisputably already in default of the payment
of the salaries from June, July, August and September, in the amount of 400,000€.”
Page 7
33. The Player deems that he terminated the Contract with just cause, following successive and
continued default by the Club in connection with its financial obligations and maintenance of an
abusive behaviour towards him.
34. In the Player’s view, his absence does not justify the Club’s continued default, especially when
considering that the payments in default predate the Player’s departure.
35. The Player argues that as the Contract was terminated by the Player with just cause, he is entitled
to receive from A, the amount of EUR 2,131,111.
36. The Player filed the following requests for relief:
a. Recognizing that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause, following the Respondent’s
continued breach to the Contract and abusive behaviour towards the Player; and, as consequence,
b. Condemning the Respondent to pay:
i) 831,111€ as overdue payables until 31 October 2021;
ii) 1,300,000€, as compensation for causing the Player to terminate the Contract with just cause,
corresponding to the residual value of the Contract as of 01 November 2021; and
iii) for paying interest on default at the rate of 5% (five percent) per annum over such amount as
of this date; and
iv) to support all costs associated with this dispute.
And, finally,
c. Imposing financial and sportive sanctions to the Respondent for its continued and unjustified
breach of the Contract.
c. Reply of the Club to the Player’s counterclaim
37. The Club states that the amendments signed between the parties arose from the COVID-19
pandemic and the financial difficulties arising thereof.
38. The Club submits that the matter of the “official leave” is an “integral point in the current matter
as there is a very different understanding of this by the Player and his representatives who assume
that by claiming “official leave” it entitles the player to indefinite absence and relief of his
contractual obligations while still benefitting from the club having to fulfill their obligations of
paying him during his self-claimed indefinite “official leave”.
Page 8
39. The Club further submits that the parties later entered an “Agreement for mutual to reschedule
due amounts” on 12 October 2021, which indicated “official leave’ but no specific terms of such
leave. The Club underlined that “this being said the clause was inserted into the agreement by the
lawyers of the players, knowing that the clause was vague and open to interpretation, which
benefitted the player and his self-claimed indefinite “official leave”.
40. The Club sustains that at all times has acknowledged its obligations and have fulfilled what was
due until 19 September 2021 the day that the Club initially agreed to have the Player absent to.
41. Moreover, the Club underlines that it is “withholding until the player’s return money due to him
after such date, at no point did they state that that they will not pay the player on his return and
after disciplinary hearings”.
42. The Club amended its request for relief as follows:
a) Dismiss the claimants claim in its entirety;
b) Declare that the claimant only be due amounts to him that are contractually due until 19
September 2021;
c) Consider B as guilty for failing to comply with its obligations towards and instructions from A;
d) Consider the player to have been absent without leave for a prolonged period without
permission or valid cause;
e) Declare that the employment contract between the parties be terminated with just cause for A
as of 1 November 2021;
f) Order B to pay compensation to the value of EUR 1,665,753.60 which equates to the remaining
amount of his contract as from 1 November 2021.
d. Reply of the Player to the Club’s claim
43. The Player replied to the claim of the Club on the following terms.
44. According to the Player, the Club’s claim has only eight paragraphs (33 through 40) to support the
“merits” of the Club’s stance on this dispute, six of which pertaining to the principle of pacta sunt
servanda in connection with a “player failure to pay the first instalment in respect of the
Termination Agreement”. Such “merits” most likely refer to another case involving the Club but
bears no connection with the one at hand. Player and A have never signed a “Termination
Agreement” and the Player, obviously, never failed to pay anything to the Club.
45. The Player further submits that the premises from the Club’s claim are “false and do not meet the
burden of reality”.
Page 9
46. In the Player’s view, the Club’s “single argument to support his unilateral (and unjustified)
termination of the Contract was the Player’s unauthorized leave”.
47. The Player underlines that upon issuing the Final Notice of Default, in November, he claimed
precisely the amounts that were overdue at the time, to which:
• Player’s salaries for June, July, August, September, and October 2021;
• EUR 294,445 originally due on 31 January 2021 (Contract) that was rescheduled to 10 October
2021 (2nd Amendment) and finally established for 10 November 2021 (3rd Amendment); and
• EUR 400,000 that was due on 31 August 2021 (Contract) and had been rescheduled to 15
November 2021.
48. The Player filed the following requests for relief:
“a. Recognizing that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause, following the Club’s
continued breach to the Contract and abusive behavior towards the Player;
As consequence,
b. Condemning the Respondent to:
i) pay 831,111€ as undisputed overdue payables until 31 October 2021;
ii) pay 1,300,000€, as compensation for causing the Player to terminate the Contract with just
cause, corresponding to the residual value of the Contract, as of 01 November 2021;
iii) pay interest on default at the rate of 5% (five percent) per annum from their respective due
dates; and
iv) support all costs associated with this dispute.
And, finally,
c. Imposing financial and sportive sanctions to A for its continued and unjustified breach of the
Contract, which caused the Player to terminate the Contract, with just cause.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
Page 10
49. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was first presented to FIFA on 3 December 2021 and submitted for decision
on 7 April 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
50. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 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 B player and a Country A club.
51. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 03 December 2021, the August 2021 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
52. 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
53. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established; the Chamber entered into
the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the abovementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
54. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and
took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the conditions of the leave of absence
agreed between them.
55. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that in order to make a determination on this matter,
the following points should be clarified.
Page 11
-
What were the conditions of the player’s authorised leave?
Based on the above, what amounts were due to the Player at the date of termination?
Did the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract?
What consequences arise from the above?
56. Based on the above, the Chamber proceed to assess the aforementioned topics.
What were the conditions of the player’s authorised leave?
57. The DRC noted that the first point of controversy between the parties lays on the particular
conditions according to which the Player was allowed to be absent.
58. On the one hand, the Player deems that the terms “official leave” meant that he was allowed
indefinite paid leave, for the time he deemed appropriate, for the purposes of looking after his
infant child. The Player bases his position on the Recital D of the Third Amendment signed
between the parties.
59. On the other hand, the Club sustains both that it never allowed an indefinite paid leave and that
based on the evidence on file, it could be ascertained that it only authorised indefinite leave as
long as it was unpaid. Otherwise, it requested several times for the Player to resume his duties
after escorting his family to City C.
60. Therefore, considering the parties’ diverging position and the lack of any further legal or
regulatory argument in support of their respective positions, the DRC proceeded to interpret the
true intention of the parties and the conditions of the Player’s authorised absence on the basis of
the evidence at its disposal – thus, chiefly on the basis of the Third Amendment, which seemed to
have been signed to establish the conditions of the Player’s absence. On this note, the DRC
confirmed that the Third Amendment is in fact silent on the issue of the remuneration as well as
the duration of the Player’s leave.
61. In this regard, the DRC recalled the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and
highlighted that such interpretation shall be assessed on the basis of the behaviour of the parties,
their respective interest in the contract and its goal.
62. In this regard, the DRC referred to the Recital D of the Third Amendment – which limited itself to
determine that the Player’s leave was to start from “mid-September” - and the correspondence
sent to the Player by the Club shortly after he left Country A. In doing so, the Chamber observed
that it was undisputed that the Club allowed the Player to be absent from 16 September “for three
days” (i.e. 19 September 2021).
Page 12
63. On the other side, the DRC observed that the Player had not provided any supporting evidence
that the Club allowed him to be on paid or indefinite leave other than his own interpretation of
the terms “official leave”.
64. Therefore, the DRC found it decisive that the Club immediately reacted after the Player had left
for Country C and confirmed his absence was indeed a short one yet paid for this period. At the
same time, the DRC noted that the Player reacted late to the Club’s letter, and solely after the
original deadline of 19 September 2021 had expired. At the same time, the DRC found that it
would be incongruent that the Player would be granted such a short leave with a payment
deduction, especially because the conditions which triggered the Player’s necessity of absent are
of a particular nature.
65. This is further confirmed by the following correspondence exchange between the parties, to the
extent that the Club again confirmed on 20 October 2021 that the Player was authorized to leave
as from 20 September 2021, without any payment, however.
66. Coherently, the Chamber remarked that such stance from the Club confirms that the Player, by
remaining away, was not in default of his obligations, for the prolonged absence was authorized
by the Club, even if at a later stage (i.e. approximately one month after he left Country A).
67. As such and considering that the Player was unable to present adequate evidence to support his
position, the Chamber determined that the Player was to be deemed on paid leave up to and
including 19 September 2021. After that date, based on the evidence produced by the parties, the
Player shall be deemed on unpaid leave up to and including the date of termination of the
contractual relationship between the parties.
Based on the above, what amounts were due to the Player at the date of termination?
68. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the DRC moved to the assessment of the
remuneration due to the Player by the Club. In this regard, the DRC emphasised that the Player
accrued salaries up to and including 19 September 2021. Thereafter, he is not entitled to his
remuneration based on the conditions of his leave of absence.
69. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DRC addressed the topic of the “advance payments” originally
due before the Player’s absence, although rescheduled by the parties’ mutual agreements, to be
due on 10 October 2021 and 15 November 2021, respectively.
70. In this regard, the DRC observed that these amounts were initially due in January 2021 and August
2021, respectively, and the parties agreed to postpone the payments. Hence, the DRC
underscored that even though the parties agreed the postponement of the payment, the
consideration due by the Player (i.e. to provide his services) had already been performed.
Page 13
71. Therefore, the DRC was comforted on the fact that although the amounts fell due during the time
the Player was absent, he shall remain entitled to the said amounts as it consisted of remuneration
for work already performed. In other words, the payment obligation was deferred by mutual
agreement of the parties, but it was not conditional to the Player continuing rendering his
services.
72. Having clarified the aforementioned points, the DRC observed that the Player asserted that on 18
November 2021, the following amounts were due:
73. Furthermore, it noted that in the Claimant words “Such amounts corresponded to 1,094,445€
which exceeded the equivalent to 6.5 monthly salaries of the Player. As the Player salary for the
2021-2022 season amounted to 2,000,000€, it averaged 166,667€ per month”, to which the
Chamber concurred.
74. Bearing in mind the previous considerations and the partial payments made by the Club (and
acknowledged by the Player), the DRC confirmed that at the date of termination the following
amounts were outstanding:
Concept
Amount
Salary June 2021
Salary July 2021
Salary August 2021
Prorrata salary September 2021 (19 days)
Advance payment January 2021
Advance payment August 2021
EUR 100,000
EUR 100,000
EUR 100,000
EUR 63,333
EUR 294,445
EUR 400,000
Subtotal
EUR 1,013,333
Payment 30 November 2021
Payment 2 December 2021
-EUR 100,000
-EUR 263,334
Total
EUR 694,444
Page 14
Did the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract?
75. Considering that at the time of termination the basic monthly salary of the Player was EUR
100,000, the DRC be observed that the outstanding amount corresponded to an amount higher
than 6 monthly salaries and that he had put the Club in default.
76. Thus, the DRC concluded that the Player has just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract on
3 December 2021, based on art. 14 of the Regulations, for the Club had failed persistently to
honour its contractual obligations.
77. For the sake of completeness, the DRC further referred to the fact that the Club, in its requests
for relief, adduced to have terminated the Contract with just cause on 1 November 2021. In this
regard, the DRC emphasised that the Club has not provided any evidence of having formally
terminated the Contract on such date and therefore, it had no option but to disregard this
argument.
ii. Consequences
78. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of
the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
79. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled
with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounted to EUR 694,444.
80. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were outstanding
under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. 694,444.
81. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on
the outstanding amounts as from 3 December 2021 until the date of effective payment.
82. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated
that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be
calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the
dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and
further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the
player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing
contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls
within the protected period.
Page 15
83. 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 Contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
84. 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. 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.
85. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the contract from the date of
its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the
amount of EUR 1,151,622 serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
86. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have
been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC as well
as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new employment contract
shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract in connection with the Player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
87. The Player however had not found new employment and remained unemployed.
88. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of
the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of EUR 1,151,622 to
the Player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present matter.
89. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation at
the rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 December 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
90. 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.
Page 16
91. 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.
92. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with
art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
93. 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.
94. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of the
Regulations.
d. Costs
95. 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.
96. 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.
97. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
Page 17
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, A, is rejected.
2.
The claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, B, is partially accepted.
3.
A has to pay to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 694,444 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 December 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,151,622 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 6 December 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the parties 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.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition),
if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this
decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1.
2.
A shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire
and consecutive registration periods.
The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in
the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of
the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of B in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and
8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 18
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 19