Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 May 2017,
in the following composition:
Thom as Grim m (S w itzerland), Deputy Chairman
John Bram hall (England), member
Takuy a Yam azaki (Japan), member
Moham ed Al S aikhan (S audi Arabia), member
Wouter Lam brecht (Belgium ), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Play er A, Country B,
as Claimant/Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club C, Country D,
as Respondent/Counter-Claimant
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 22 September 2013, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter:
Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter:
Respondent/Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter:
contract), valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2015.
2.
According to article IV.1 of the contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was
entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant inter alia a monthly
salary as follows:
- EUR 6,000 for the period between 22 September 2013 and 30 June 2014;
- EUR 7,000 for the period between 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015.
- Accommodation and a car.
3.
Article IV.2. of the contract established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
undertook to “create at his own expense favourable conditions for training, the
realization of the daily regime of the Player, his eating, regeneration and
rehabilitation, to ensure quality medical and therapeutic services, to create a
cultural environment for training and for rest”.
4.
Article II.12. of the contract established as obligation of the Claimant/CounterRespondent “To make out invoices for the provisions of his services for financial
fulfilments provided to the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] for the appropriate
calendar year; invoices for services provided in the calendar year must be made out
monthly”.
5.
Article VI.3.d) of the contract determined that “The [Claimant/Counter-Respondent]
may withdraw from the contract if the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] does not
fulfil its undertaking given in Article IV point 1, or any other undertaking to pay
remuneration, a bonus or any other payment due to the [Claimant/CounterRespondent] according to this contract, and does not do so even in the replacement
deadline of 30 days, which begins to run on the day of the delivery of the appeal
from the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] addressed to the [Respondent/CounterClaimant] for payment of the due liabilities according to this contract. The period of
notice for this case is 60 calendar days and begins to run on the day following
delivery of the written appeal to the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant]; the
[Claimant/Counter-Respondent]
is
entitled
to
give
notice
to
the
[Respondent/Counter-Claimant] at earliest on the first day following the
replacement deadline agreed between him and the [Respondent/CounterClaimant]”.
6.
On the same date, i.e. 22 September 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed the document “Supplement No. 1”
(hereinafter: Supplement 1), according to which the monthly salary established in
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 2 of 17
the contract was raised to EUR 7,060 and, for the period between 1 July 2014 until
30 June 2015, to EUR 8,235. Moreover, the Supplement 1 established that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to a monthly house allowance in the
amount of EUR 1,176.
7.
On 14 July 2014, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Club of Country D, Club
E, concluded a loan agreement, by means of which the Claimant/CounterRespondent was transferred on a loan basis to Club E, from the date of signature
until 30 June 2015.
8.
The loan agreement established inter alia that “II.1. By signing this Agreement, [the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant] will loan the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] to Club
E without financial compensation. 2. The Contracting Parties agreed that for the
term of the loan Club E will pay [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] a proportional
part of the basic monthly salary of the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] of XXX
40,000 plus VAT monthly, payable on the 15th day of the calendar month following
the month, for which the salary is due to the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] upon
the presentation of the invoice by [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] at the latest.
3. The [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] agrees with the loan hereunder.”
9.
On 14 July 2014, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/CounterClaimant signed the document “Supplement No. 2” (hereinafter: Supplement 2), by
means of which the contract was amended. In particular, by means of art. II.2.1. of
the Supplement 2, the letter e) was added to article IV.1. of the contract, which
reads: “e) the monthly remuneration from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 amounting 8,235, EUR is due on 15th day of the following calendar month, after the presentation of
the
valid
invoice
by
the
[Claimant/Counter-Respondent].
Shall
the
[Respondent/Counter-Claimant] be in delay with the payment of the monthly
remuneration with 15 days after the presentation of the valid invoice, the
[Claimant/Counter-Respondent] is entitled to unilaterally terminate this contract
without prior notice and the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is obliged to pay the
[Claimant/Counter-Respondent] the sum of monthly remunerations for the
remaining duration of this contract according to the FIFA regulations within 30
days”.
10. Moreover, article II.2.2 of the Supplement 2 established that “Based on the loan
agreement signed between the clubs [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] and Club E,
the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is responsible to pay the [Claimant/CounterRespondent] from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 monthly remuneration amounting of 8,235,
- EUR and the club, Club E, is responsible to pay [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant]
from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 monthly remuneration 40,000, - XXX”.
11. In addition, article II.2.3. of the Supplement 2 established that “The
[Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is in this period still committed to provide a car for
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 3 of 17
the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] and a housing benefit of 1,176 – EUR but for all
other bonuses as a starting fee for every point acquired in the League is from
1.7.2014 responsible Club E according to the agreement between the
[Claimant/Counter-Respondent] and the club, Club E”.
12. Finally, according to article II.2.4. of the Supplement 2, “All other terms and
conditions of the Professional Contract that are not hereby amended are to remain
in full force and effect”.
13. On
12
January
2015,
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
put
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default of payment and requested the payment of
outstanding remuneration regarding November 2014, due on 15 December 2014, as
well as a timely payment of the remuneration regarding December 2014 on 15
January 2015, indicating that otherwise he will terminate the contract in accordance
with article II.2.1. of the Supplement 2.
14. On 15 January 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract in
writing due to non-payment of the due remuneration by the Respondent/CounterClaimant as well as for not creating “favourable conditions for trainings, realization
of the daily regime, eating, regeneration and rehabilitation” as per art. IV.2. of the
contract.
15. On 17 January 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of
FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting
the following:
- EUR 18,822 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest, composed of the
monthly salaries and house allowances for November and December 2014 [2 x
EUR 9,411 (EUR 8,235 + EUR 1,176)];
- EUR 56,466 as compensation plus 5% interest, composed of the monthly
salaries and house allowances as from 1 January 2015 until 30 June 2015 (6 x
EUR 9,411);
- Reimbursement of “costs of team trainings”;
- Reimbursement of “the payments corresponding to the pension for
professional football Claimant/Counter-Respondents in Country F”;
- Legal expenses.
16. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in summer 2014, he was informed
by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that they were no longer interested in his
services and he accepted the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s offer to be transferred
on a loan basis to the Club of Country D, Club E as from 14 July 2014 until the end of
the winter part of the 2014/2015 season, preventing the termination of the contract.
In particular, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent highlighted that he was not a party
to the loan agreement concluded between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 4 of 17
Club E, but that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant agreed to continue paying his
remuneration established in the contract in accordance with the Supplement 2.
17. Furthermore, notwithstanding the agreement between the parties, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegedly failed to pay the remuneration for the
months of November and December 2014, due respectively on 15 December 2014
and 15 January 2015.
18. According
to
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent,
after
putting
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default on 12 January 2015, he terminated the
contract on 15 January 2015, since the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to fulfil
its contractual obligations.
19. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent pointed out that the breach of the
contract occurred not only because the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay
the
remuneration
as
contractually
agreed,
but
also
because
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant violated art. IV.2. of the contract, since it did not
allow him to train and participate in matches after Club E did not want his services
anymore. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that, although he
was never informed directly by Club E, he became aware through the media that
Club E was no longer interested in his services. For this reason, he had to participate
in the Football Association of Country D’s training camp from 5 January until 15
January 2015.
20. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that professional players are not
considered employees in the Country D, but are self-employed, reason why he was
not entitled to any payments in connection with pension funds as in countries where
professional players are employees under the protection of labour law. Therefore,
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
reimburse the payments corresponding to the pension for professional football
players in Country F, country of his permanent residency.
21. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
claim, in particular, the reasons invoked for the termination of the contract, which it
considered invalid.
22. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on 6 January 2015, it received an
invoice issued by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent dated 30 December 2014
labeled “monthly remuneration for 11/2014” with the due date set to 7 January
2015, however, actually sent by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 2 January
2015. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that the Claimant/CounterRespondent did that on purpose to make sure that the Respondent/CounterClaimant only had one day to make the relevant payment.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 5 of 17
23. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that, according to
applicable national law, the due term of invoices is 30 days, unless agreed
differently by the parties. Moreover, it highlighted that, according to the contract,
the due date of any invoices is the 15th day of the following month after the
presentation of a valid invoice by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In this regard,
according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the invoice submitted by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent dated 30 December 2014 regarding November 2014,
received by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 6 January 2015, would become
due on 15 February 2015 only. Consequently, the due date of 7 January 2015
established by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was null and void.
24. Regarding the default notice, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stressed that it had
not received an invoice regarding the remuneration for December 2014, which was
allegedly mandatory according to the contract. In this respect, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant recognized having received the default notice on 12
January 2015 from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s representative. However, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged that during a meeting held with the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 14 January 2015, he announced his wish to
prematurely terminate the employment relation to the surprise of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
25. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that it made a counter-proposal, to which
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s representative did not give a feedback as
agreed upon, but instead the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract
on the following day.
26. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that at the moment the Claimant
terminated the contract, all sums of remuneration due were already paid to his
bank account.
27. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further held that it received the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s notice of termination, dated 15 January 2015, on 20
January 2015 after it already had made the relevant payment.
28. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant also indicated that, even if it was in default of
payments, it was not for a long enough period of time to justify the termination of
the contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In particular, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant emphasised that the remuneration of December 2014
was not yet due, therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not in default of
its payment. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant made reference to article IV.3.d) of
the contract and held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not respect the
deadlines and requirements of such provision.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 6 of 17
29. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that the Claimant/CounterRespondent terminated the contract without just cause and that thus, he is not
entitled to receive compensation.
30. Considering all the above, on the same occasion, i.e. on 23 March 2015, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant/CounterRespondent for breach of contract, which was amended on 3 February 2016,
requesting the following:
- EUR 110,364 as compensation, in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations;
- XXX 600,000 relating to financial disciplinary sanctions imposed on the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant;
- XXX 186,669 corresponding to “damages by unjust use of the
[Respondent/Counter-Claimant]’s car” for the period between 1 January and 23
July 2015;
- XXX 240,000 corresponding to damages caused by the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s failure to enter the preparation for season 2014/2015 with Club
E, composed of XXX 40,000 for each month from 1 January 2015 until 30 June
2015;
- Damages “in full amount as quantified by Club E, in the event that Club E
demands compensation for damages resulting from breach of player loan
contract concerning the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] dated 14.7.2014, from
the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant]”;
- XXX 14,886.19 as reimbursement of repair of the company’s car;
- CHF 13,000 as legal expenses.
31. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant presented the following detailed calculation of
the amount of compensation it claims:
i) Value of the contract:
- EUR 130,040 for the 2013/2014 season, considering an average remuneration of
EUR 13,040 composed of :
a) EUR 7,060 as monthly salary
b) EUR 1,176 as housing costs, and
c) EUR 1,000 approximately, as “non-monetary satisfaction” regarding the use
of a company car;
d) EUR 1,540.80 as average monthly bonuses;
e) and value added tax of 21% from the total value of the monthly
remuneration.
- EUR 151,164 for the 2014/2015 season, specifically for the period between 1 July
2014 until 30 June 2015, considering an average remuneration of EUR 12,597
composed of :
f) EUR 8,235 as monthly salary
g) EUR 1,176 as housing costs, and
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 7 of 17
h) EUR 1,000 approximately, as “non-monetary satisfaction” regarding the use
of a company car;
i) and value added tax of 21% from the total value of the monthly
remuneration.
Therefore, a total contractual value of EUR 281,204, which multiplied by a
coefficient 1.5 equals EUR 421,806.
ii) Lost profit:
- EUR 150,000, considering that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant intended to
transfer the Claimant/Counter-Respondent before the end of the season, the
total amount must be increased by the alleged lost profit. EUR 150,000
corresponds to half the amount of costs allegedly related to the engagement of
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, which
allegedly also is the current market value of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
Therefore, the value equals EUR 571,806 (EUR 421,806 + EUR 150,000) for the whole
contractual period, i.e. 22 months, which results in an average monthly value of EUR
25,991, which multiplied by the remaining months of the contractual period, i.e. 6
months, results in the amount of EUR 155,946. The latter amount shall be lowered
by “salary savings” of EUR 75,582 for the period of six remaining months (from
January until June 2015), amounting to EUR 80,364.
Finally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant added EUR 30,000 as additional
compensation for specificity of sport, considering that the termination transpired
after the registration period, making it impossible for the Respondent/CounterClaimant to sign another player.
32. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that it is entitled to receive the
total amount of EUR 110,364 (EUR 80,364 + EUR 30,000) as compensation.
33. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
did not fulfil his obligations with Club E, abandoning Club E in spite of several
reminders of Club E to join the club for preparation in 2015. In this respect, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted a copy of a letter of Club E addressed to
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, dated 12 January 2015, by means of which Club E
informs the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
“has not commenced hosting in our club in breach of Player Loan Agreement” as
well as states that it will suspend the payment of “proportional part of basic
monthly remuneration of the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] amounting to XXX
40,000”, until the Claimant/Counter-Respondent commences performance. The
Respondent/Counter-Claimant further submitted a letter of Club E addressed to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, dated 30 January 2015, by means of which Club E
withdrew from the loan agreement, in light of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
breach of the loan agreement.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 8 of 17
34. As a consequence, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant asked that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent compensates its alleged damages in the amount XXX
240,000, because Club E has failed to reimburse this amount to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the period between 1 January 2015 and 30 June
2015.
35. In continuation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that, because the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to render his services to Club E as from 1
January 2015, he was sanctioned with a fine of XXX 600,000, which shall be paid by
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. In this
regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant presented a copy of a letter issued by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant addressed to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent,
dated 19 March 2015, by means of which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant informs
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent that “upon decision of the Disciplinary
Committee” of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant dated 16 March 2015, in line with
the Disciplinary regulations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, an extraordinary
disciplinary fine of XXX 600,000 was imposed on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
due to the ongoing breach committed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
consisting in his failure to “commence performance in hosting in Club E”.
36. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further alleged that the Claimant/CounterRespondent continued using the car, which was provided by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, after the termination of the contract, without any
legal justification, until July 2015, causing monetary damages to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, i.e. XXX 26,667 per month. In this respect, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted a copy of a handover certificate issued by
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant dated 23 July 2015, which “took place in the
presence of Mgr. G, acting on behalf of” the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
representative. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further submitted a partially
translated document describing the amount of XXX 26,667 as “Non-monetary
benefits Player A” issued by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in this respect.
37. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant also requested the reimbursement of the costs of
the repair of damages caused to the car. In this respect, the Respondent/CounterClaimant submitted two letters addressed to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, one
dated 9 April 2015, requesting the return of the car as well as payment for the
unjustified usage of the car, and one dated 28 August 2015, requesting the payment
of the costs of the repair of damages caused by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to
the car, which were listed in the handover certificate.
38. In reply to the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent stating on a preliminary basis that the DRC is not
competent to deal with the dispute regarding the loan of the car and the alleged
damages, since it is not an employment related dispute.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 9 of 17
39. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that the invoice dated 30
December 2014 is irrelevant, since an employee must be paid automatically,
irrespective of the issuance of an invoice. In addition, the Claimant/CounterRespondent affirmed that the arguments and documents submitted by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant are irrelevant and intentionally distracting.
40. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained his claim and highlighted that, since
June 2014, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had been in delay of payments and
that, since July 2014, although he was on loan with Club E, the Respondent/CounterClaimant has still been responsible to pay the remuneration as per the contract. On
12 January 2015, he put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default asking for
immediate payment or the contract would be terminated. Considering that on 15
January 2015 the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not paid the amounts for
November and December 2014, he terminated the contract.
41. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that, even if the general rule for
termination with just cause is 3 months of non-payment, the long-term late
payments are also accepted as just cause by the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
42. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted unsolicited correspondence after the
closure of the investigation-phase.
43. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that he had remained unemployed
since the termination of the contract until this date.
II. Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
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 17 January
2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2014; hereinafter:
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 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2016) 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 player from Country B and a Club of Country D.
3.
Furthermore, 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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 10 of 17
26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 January 2015, the
2014 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber 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 considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
In continuation, the DRC took note that, on 22 September 2013, the parties signed
the contract valid until 30 June 2015 as well as the Supplement 1, by means of which
the monthly salary established in the contract was raised and the value of the
accommodation was specified.
6.
Moreover, the Chamber further took note that it remained undisputed that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent was transferred on a loan basis from the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant to Club E for the period between 1 July 2014 until 30
June 2015, in accordance with the loan agreement, i.e. until the expiry of the
contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed the Supplement 2 on 14 July 2014, i.e.
on the date of signature of the loan agreement between Club E and the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, amending the contract. In particular, the members of
the DRC took note that, in accordance with the Supplement 2, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant remained responsible for the payment of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration for the duration of the loan period,
i.e. from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015. In addition, the DRC highlighted that the
Supplement 2 established as the due date for payment of the remuneration “the
15th day of the following calendar month”.
8.
In continuation, the DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant/CounterRespondent claimed having terminated the contract on 15 January 2015 with just
cause, after having put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default, since the latter
failed to pay his remuneration for November and December 2014. Moreover, the
Claimant/-Counter-Respondent argued that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed
to provide him with adequate training after it had become clear in January 2015
that Club E was no longer interested in his services.
9.
On the other hand, the DRC noted that, according to the Respondent/CounterClaimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not have a valid reason to
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 11 of 17
terminate the contract, notably taking into account that the remuneration had not
been outstanding for a long enough period. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant
further held having paid the remuneration corresponding to November 2014 on 15
January 2015 and that the December 2014 remuneration had not yet fallen due.
Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that the Claimant/CounterRespondent failed to respect the contractual provisions relating to deadlines and
notice of default.
10. In view of the foregoing, the DRC deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute
was to determine as to whether or not the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had a just
cause to terminate the contract on 15 January 2015 and, subsequently, to decide on
the consequences thereof.
11. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber proceeded to the analysis of
the arguments and the corresponding documentation provided by the parties. At
this point and for the sake of good order, the DRC recalled the basic principle of
burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden
of proof.
12. In this respect, the DRC recalled that, on 12 January 2015, the Claimant/CounterRespondent put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default of payment of his
remuneration corresponding to the month of November 2014, before terminating
the contract on 15 January 2015. In this respect, the DRC highlighted that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent granted only three days, i.e. until 15 January 2015,
for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to cure its default and that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on the day on which the
time limit set by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in his default notice would
expire. In addition, the members of the DRC took into account that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not contested the Respondent/CounterClaimant’s statement that it had paid the remuneration corresponding to November
2014.
13. In addition, the members of the DRC considered that, in accordance with the due
date established in the Supplement 2 for the payment of the monthly remuneration,
i.e. the 15th day of the following month, the monthly remuneration of December
2014 only fell due on the date of termination of the contract by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent, i.e. 15 January 2015.
14. Having said this, the DRC turned its attention to the other reason invoked by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the termination the contract, i.e. the alleged
failure of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to provide him with adequate training
following Club E’s premature termination of his services on a loan basis in January
2015.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 12 of 17
15. In this respect, the Chamber stressed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
default notice of 12 January 2015 does not include any reference to the alleged
failure of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to provide him with adequate training.
16. Subsequently, the Chamber reverted to the loan agreement as well as to the
Supplement 2 and recalled that it remained undisputed that the Claimant/CounterRespondent was transferred to Club E on a loan basis for the period between 1 July
2014 until 30 June 2015, during which period, whereas the Claimant/CounterRespondent would render his services to Club E, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
remained responsible for the payment of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
monthly remuneration.
17. In this respect, the DRC took into account that it has remained undisputed between
the parties that, in January 2015, the employment relationship between Club E and
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had prematurely ended.
18. However, considering the loan agreement, the DRC deemed that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant had no obligation to accept the services of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent during the loan period which, in the present matter,
coincides with the end of the relevant contractual period, as well as after the
premature end of his loan period with Club E. Therefore, the members of the
Chamber concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had no obligation to
provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with training in January 2015.
19. Consequently, on account of all the above, the Chamber decided that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s argumentation could not be upheld and that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had no just cause to terminate the contract on 15
January 2015.
20. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s claim for compensation for breach of contract shall be rejected.
21. In continuation, the DRC reverted to the counterclaim of the Respondent/CounterClaimant requesting inter alia compensation for breach of contract without just
cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
22. In this respect, the members of the DRC recalled that it remained undisputed by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant that it had informed the Claimant/CounterRespondent that it was no longer interested in his services, reason why he was
transferred to Club E (cf. point I./16. above) until the end of the contractual period.
23. Moreover, the DRC took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not
incur any damages as a result of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s departure from
Club E. In this respect, the DRC considered that the amounts due by Club E to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with the loan agreement were a
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 13 of 17
proportional part of the monthly remuneration due to the Claimant/CounterRespondent during the loan, which was terminated in January 2015.
24. In addition, the DRC considered the requests of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
related to the alleged use of the car by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and
determined that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not discharge its burden of
proof in this respect. Moreover, the Chamber considered that such requests had no
contractual basis and thus, decided to reject the pertinent requests.
25. Subsequently, the DRC reverted to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s request
related to the pecuniary sanction allegedly imposed on the Claimant/CounterRespondent and decided to also reject this request, considering that the alleged
disciplinary sanction was imposed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 16 March
2015 and thus, after the termination of the contractual relationship between the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
26. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC was eager to emphasize that it must still verify
whether any amounts contractually agreed upon by the parties have remained
outstanding for services rendered by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent when the
latter terminated the contract.
27. In this respect, the DRC considered that it has remained undisputed that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration corresponding to services rendered
during the month of December 2014 was not paid. On the other hand, the DRC
recalled that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not dispute the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s allegation that it had paid the remuneration for the
month of November 2014.
28. Thus, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim as well as
the reasons previously exposed, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with the
general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
must fulfil its obligations as per the Supplement 2 and, consequently, is liable to pay
outstanding remuneration to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the total amount
of EUR 9,411, corresponding to the remuneration regarding the month of December
2014.
29. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request
pertaining to payment of interest and bearing in mind that the Claimant/CounterRespondent had not indicated the date as of when the 5% interest p.a. should be
calculated, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 9,411 as of the date of receipt
of the claim, 17 January 2015.
30. Moreover, the DRC decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim for
reimbursement of alleged costs of team trainings and of alleged payments for
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 14 of 17
pension for professional football players must be rejected due to the lack of a
contractual basis as well as to the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did
not specify the amounts claimed.
31. Additionaly, as regards the parties’ claims for legal expenses, the Chamber referred
to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and wellestablished jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation
shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the parties’ requests relating to legal
expenses.
32. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that the
claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted and that the
counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
III. Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted.
2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected.
3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of this decision,
outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 9,411 plus 5% interest p.a. as from
17 January 2015 until the date of effective payment.
4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a
formal decision.
5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is
to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment
received.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 15 of 17
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to article 58 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).
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 16 of 17
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:
Omar Ongaro
Football Regulatory Director
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 17 of 17