Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 May 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Deputy Chairperson
Khadija Timera (Senegal), member
Khalid Awad Al-Thebity (Saudi Arabia), member
CLAIMANT:
A, Country A
Represented by
RESPONDENT:
B, Country B
Represented by
Page 2
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 11 March 2019, A (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) and B (hereinafter: B, club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid “for the period from the 2019-2020 sports
season to June 10, 2024” (according to the Transfer Matching System (TMS) the 2019/2020
sporting season in Country B started on 1 August 2019).
2.
As per clause 3.3 of the contract, the payer was entitled to:
a. USD 5,000 as monthly salary;
b. USD 25,000 as sign-on fee;
c. Bonuses;
d. Accommodation.
3.
Clause 5.5.10 of the contract (hereinafter: the compensation clause) stipulates that: “In
accordance with the provisions of art. 17 of the FIFA [RSTP, the sum of USD 1,000,000 is due as
compensation in case of violation and / or unilateral termination”.
4.
Clause 5.5.11 of the contact stipulates that: “In the event that a dispute between the parties
regarding the content of this contract and its obligations, the matter may be referred to the FIFA
Status and Transfer Committee. In the event of an appeal, this dispute shall be settled in
accordance with the Rules of the Sports Arbitration Tribunal (CAS) and the decision of the CAS
shall be final and binding on the parties”.
5.
Clause 7 of the contract establishes that: “Changes to this agreement or any agreement created
pursuant to this agreement require the written consent of all parties present. The modification
refers to this agreement and / or the current contract and expressly states that it is an amendment
to it”.
6.
On 10 September 2020, the player was loaned from B to the Country C club, C (hereinafter: C) for
the period as from 13 September 2020 until 30 June 2021.
7.
On 12 September 2020, the player and B concluded an “addendum to the contract of employment
contract”. As per the addendum: “1. The clause relating to duration of contract is amended to five
years from the date of this agreement, that is, 11th September 2020 to 10th September 2025, in
lieu of the loan period of the football season 2020/21 to C, Country C. 2. The clause referred to
above shall be automatically revised by an additional year for subsequent loan arrangements or
extensions in order that the integrity of the duration of the contract is maintained. 3. The
employee declares expressly and voluntarily that he renounces any claim to wages, subsidies of
any kind and/or bonuses from B during the loan period”.
8.
On 13 September 2020, the player and C signed an employment contract valid as from 13
September 2020 until 30 June 2021, for a monthly salary of USD 1,600.
9.
On 3 February 2021, C allegedly terminated the player’s employment contract unilaterally.
Page 3
10. On 8 April 2021, the player sent a letter to B requesting the payment of “at least 40%” of his
monthly salaries; “This is because C did not give me any settlement or compensation upon
releasing off my duty, and as my parent club I expected you to negotiate something on my behalf
before moving me to Country A, knowing that I still have contract with the Club. As you will
recollect, I joined C for one league season which is 2020/2021 league season. Although my loan
contract has not yet expired, and they are unable continue with the contract and this situation is
tantamount to me returning to my original club per FIFA statutes, which transfers my
remuneration responsibilities to the Club. In consideration on the financial burden on the football
clubs, I hereby request for the payment of at least 40% of my contracted salary with you, till am
able to join the club for the new season”.
11. On 7 July 2021, a member of the club, Mr XX, contacted the player on behalf of the club in order
to know the player’s plans regarding his football career. The player alleged that he replied stating
that his desire was to join the club for pre-season to fight for his position in the team, but the club
replied stating that that would not happen, meaning that the player could not join the club and
that the latter had lost its interest in the player’s services.
12. On the same date and following the instructions given by Mr XX, the player contacted Mr XX,
another member of the club, in order to further discuss his future at the club and the situation
explained by Mr XX; however, to no avail.
13. On 13 August 2021, the player claims to have received a flight ticket from City A (Country A) to
City B (Country B), via City D (Country D), on the 15th of August 2021.
14. Also on 13 August 2021, the player wrote to the club explaining that he would not be able to travel
on 15 August 2021, since he does not have a valid visa. He further explained that “In our last
conversation I did mentioned about my visa situation and the document I needed to apply for the
visa here in Country A but you didn’t respond to my message. I would appreciate if you can change
the date on ticket to 20th August 2021 to enable me apply for the visa on Monday and do my
Covid text on Wednesday. Please I will need the following document to apply for visa: 1. Invitation
letter 2. Prise en charge 3. Visa application fees (300 usd for 3 months visa). Please I will be
expecting the above documents and the fee as soon as possible to apply for the visa on Monday”.
15. On 14 August 2021, the player contacted the club via WhatsApp, following up the letter sent by
the player to the club on the previous day concerning the player’s visa.
16. On 27 August 2021, the player sent a letter to B via his legal representative, inquiring about the
future of his employment with the club, since he allegedly had not yet received any information
from the club about the pre-season training, in spite of his several attempts to communicate with
the club. In particular, the player states that “We acknowledge the receipt of Country D flight
ticket with Booking Number xx sent by the club to our client to board the Country D flight on 13th
August 2021. Per our checks with the Country D Airline office in Country A, the flight Ticket with
Page 4
the booking number xx Does not exit in their system. The transfer windows are about to close
globally and we would like to know the future of our client. He is willing to return to the club (B)
to fight for his position”.
17. The player claims having remained unemployed following the termination of the contract with
the Respondent.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 25 October 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of the Claimant
19. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA, requesting to be awarded
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
20. The player first states that, in spite of clause 5.5.11 of the first contract, FIFA is competent to hear
the present dispute, as the Football Association of Country B allegedly does not have an
operational Dispute Resolution Chamber, complying with the pre-requisites of Circular 1010 of
FIFA.
21. As to the substance, the player alleges that B provided him on 13 August 2021 with an invalid air
ticket from Country A to Country B, for a flight on 15 August 2021, while being aware of the fact
that the player’s visa had expired and that he would not be able to travel. The player also claims
to have had his inquiries about the details of re-joining the club for the pre-season ignores by the
club. In particular, he states that “Per the club actions it’s clear that the club is not interested in
the service of the player and have decided to ignore the player until the player ask for contract
termination. All efforts made by the player to return to the Club B wasn’t successful”. Thus, the
player deems that B breached their employment contract without just cause.
22. Based on the foregoing, the player requests FIFA to decide that:
a. “the Club is indebted to the Player in the amount of USD$ 35,000.00 (Thirty Five thousand
United States Dollars) being the unpaid salary, owing and payable to the Player by the Club, plus
interest from the date to be determined by the FIFA DRC; [allegedly corresponding to unpaid
salaries from April to October 2021]
b. The club have breached the employment without just a cause and is indebted to the player in
the amount of USD$ 240,000.00 (Two hundred and forty thousand United States dollars).
[allegedly corresponding to the residual value of the employment contract]
c. The club be and is hereby ordered to pay the amounts set out in paragraph 25(1) and 25(2)
above to the Player within thirty days of the order of the FIFA DRC and
Page 5
d. Any or further compensation relief that the FIFA DRC deems appropriate”.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Respondent
23. In its reply to the claim, dated 9 December 2021, B entirely rejected the player’s claim and lodged
a counterclaim against him and his new club (if any) for breach of contract.
24. In particular, the club states that on 11 August 2021, at the end of the player’s loan with C and of
the annual holidays, it informed the player that he should travel back to City B to resume his
contract with the club and provided him with a flight ticket for 15 August 2021. The club, however,
claims to have been informed by the player that he would not be able to be in City A to depart on
15 August 2021, which the club deems absurd, since he was already in Country A. The club rejects
the argument of the player’s representative, stated in his letter of 27 August 2021, that the
reservation was fake and states that it never again heard from the player until the 25 October
2021, when it was informed of the present claim. Thus, the club deems that the player unilaterally
terminated the contact de facto, without just cause.
25. Subsequently, the club denies having any outstanding amounts towards the player. B recalls that
the player was on loan with C until 30 June 2021 and therefore B had no obligation to pay the
player. In this respect, B also refers to point 3 of the addendum.
26. The club further refers to the FIFA Commentary and states that, even if the employment contract
between the player and C was prematurely terminated, “the player has no automatic right to
return to their parent club prematurely, and the latter has no obligation to integrate the player
before the expiry of the agreed loan period”.
27. Furthermore, the club indicates that the player had already lodged a labour claim against C at FIFA
and was successful in his request /case ref. FPSD-XX; decision passed on 30 June 2021, notified on
7 July 2021, awarding the player USD 4,000 as outstanding remuneration and USD 8,000 as
compensation). Following the FIFA decision, the player and C concluded a settlement agreement
on 23 August 2021, by means of which C agreed inter alia to pay the player the total amount of
USD 12,266.66 in two instalments. In view of the foregoing, B deems that the player acted in bad
faith by sending his default notice of 8 April 2021 and lodging the present claim against B.
28. The club also points out that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the 2020/2021 season in Country B
finished on 5 August 2021 instead of the beginning of July. The club also emphasises that the
player had never put the club in default of payment of any outstanding amounts before lodging
the claim.
29. The club further claims that the player’s absence at B after the end of his loan period was
unjustified. In particular, the club indicates that the air ticket was sent to the player on 11 August
2021. The club indicates that the player was in Country A but refused without a plausible reason
Page 6
to travel to City A for the flight on 15 August 2021. In this respect, B points out that the actual
reason why he could not travel was that his passport (as enclosed to his claim) had expired on 20
October 2020; having a valid passport is an exclusive responsibility of the player. Furthermore,
the club points out that the player did not provide any proof of his false (as per the club) allegation
that the air ticket provided by the club was not valid. The argument related to the PCR test is also
rejected, since the results of such a test are usually available within a few hours. The club finally
maintains that, as per the contract, it was not obliged to provide the player with an air ticket to
resume his contract. Thus, he should be held liable to pay the club an amount of compensation.
In this respect, the club refers to clause 5.5.11 of the contract and indicates that it contains all
pre-requisites of a valid compensation clause as per art. 163 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO).
30. As the player was absent without a valid justification from 16 August 2021 until 25 October 2021,
he breached the employment contract.
31. Based on the foregoing the club makes the following request for relief:
e. The payment by the player of USD 1,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract, in line
with clause 5.5.11 of the contract;
f. That the player’s new club is held joint and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned amount;
g. The application of a sporting sanction on the player, for the unjustified breach of contract during
the protected period.
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
32. In his rejoinder, the player reiterated his previous argumentation and rejected the arguments of
the club.
33. In addition, the player amended his request for relief, only requesting to be provided the amount
of USD 1,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract, on the basis of art. 5.5.10 of the
contract.
34. In addition, the player denied that he received a valid flight ticket by the 11th of August 2021 and
held that it was not a “confirmed ticket” but a mere reservation.
35. The player further referred to his messages, sent to the club during the months of July and August
2021, whereby the player inquired the club about his career within the club, the latter not
providing the player with options to join the club, stating that his return to the club was unlikely
and showing a clear lack of interest in his services.
Page 7
36. The player further explained that, on 27 October 2021, i.e. once the present proceedings had been
initiated, the club “sent a flight itinerary to the player and on the itinerary the player was
scheduled to travel on City B on 31st October 2021”. The player argued that he did not reply
thereto “because it doesn’t make sense to us because, in our previous documents, we have
mentioned to the club that the player needs a visa before he can travel and yet the club sent the
flight itinerary without visa”. In the player’s opinion, the said move of the club was made because,
at this point, the club knows what is at stake, so they sent the ticket and a final notice letter just
to have a document to support their claims.
37. The player further explained that, thereafter, the club approached the player on several
occasions, proposing to settle the dispute by paying an amount equal to one year of the player’s
remuneration as compensation for breach of contract, which was rejected by the player, insofar
as the present proceedings were ongoing and the proposal of the club were much lower than the
amount to which the player is entitled.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 25 October 2021 and submitted for decision on 5
May 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.
39. 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 A player and a Country B club.
40. 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 25 October 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
41. 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
Page 8
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
42. 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
43. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and
recalled that the present claim deals with an alleged breach of contract, following the premature
termination of a loan agreement. In particular, the Chamber noted that, whereas the Claimant
claims that his parent club breached their contract, the Respondent deems that it was the player
who breached the contract and, on those grounds, lodged a counterclaim against him.
44. In order to properly assess the matter at hand, the Chamber wished to briefly recall the main
undisputed facts of the case, in a chronological order:
- 11 March 2019: B and the player sign an employment contract valid as from season
2019/2020 until 10 June 2024; the 2019/2020 season in Country B started on 1 August 2019;
- 10 September 2020: the player is loaned from B to C for the period of 13 September 2020
to 30 June 2021;
- 12 September 2020: the player and B conclude an “addendum to the contract of
employment contract”, establishing inter alia that their contract is now valid as from 11
September 2020 to 10 September 2025, on loan with C for the 2020/2021 season;
- 13 September 2020: the player and C sign an employment contract valid as from 13
September 2020 until 30 June 2021;
- 3 February 2021: C allegedly terminated the player’s employment contract unilaterally;
- 22 February 2021: the player lodges a claim at FIFA against C for breach of contract;
- 8 April 2021: the player writes to B requesting the payment of “at least 40%” of his monthly
salaries, his immediate reinstatement to his parent club;
Page 9
- 30 June 2021: the claim of the player against C is decided and the player wins;
- 7 July 2021: the parties maintain conversations about the player’s future, the club stating
that his return to the club would be unlinkely;
- 11/13 August 2021: the player receives from B a flight ticket (or a reservation of it) from
City A (Country A) to City B (Country B) through City D (Country D) on the 15th of August
2021;
- 13 August 2021: the player writes to the club explaining he would not be able to travel on
15 August 2021, since he does not have a valid visa;
- 23 August 2021: C and the player signed a settlement agreement by means of which C
agreed inter alia to pay the player the total amount of USD 12,266.66 in two instalments;
- 27 August 2021: the player sends a letter to B, via his legal representative, inquiring about
the future of his employment with the club and the pre-season, and stating the flight ticket
reference cannot be found;
- 25 October 2021: the present claim is lodged by the player against the club for outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract;
- 9 December 2021: B lodges a counterclaim against the player (and any eventual new club
of the player) for breach of contract.
45. From the aforementioned, the DRC first noted that the player’s present claim for outstanding
remuneration against B was lodged after the player had already won his claim against C in front
of FIFA and concluded a settlement agreement with the latter club for the payment of the amount
awarded in the decision. Thus, the DRC noted that this part of the player’s claim (remuneration
during loan period, i.e. until 30 June 2021) would in principle be upheld. However, considering
that the player amended his request for relief in his reply to the counterclaim of the club, the DRC
observed that the player no longer requests to be awarded outstanding remuneration.
46. Thus, in the absence of any outstanding remuneration requested, the issue to be analysed is
whether B failed to ensure the player’s employment with it after the expiry of the loan with C or
whether the player failed to re-join B after the expiry of his loan.
47. In this regard, the Chamber wished to emphasize that, in line with B’s argumentation and the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the player indeed did not have the automatic right to be
reinstated with his parent club (B) following the premature termination of his employment
contract with C, on loan. Thus, this argument of the player cannot be upheld.
Page 10
48. Having said that, the DRC noted that the player’s loan with C would expire on 30 June 2021 and
that, thereafter, the player was supposed to re-join B as from 1 July 2021. According to the
information contained in the TMS, the 2020/2021 season in Country B ended on 31 May 2021 and
the 2021/2022 season started on 1 August 2021.
49. From the documentation on file, the DRC noted that B only sent to the player a flight ticket (or a
reservation of it) to fly to Country B on 11/13 August 2021, i.e. more than 1.5 month after he was
in theory reintegrated to B and about 2 weeks after the start of the new season, for a flight which
would take place 4/2 days later. Even though it is indeed the player’s responsibility to hold a valid
passport, the Chamber deemed that, in view of 1.) B’s late reaction to call back the player; 2.) B’s
lack of reply to the messages sent by the player during the months of July and August 2021; and
3.) the very short interval between the issuance of the flight tickets (or the reservation of the
tickets) and the flight (especially considering the lack of a visa, which is in turn B’s responsibility,
and the current Covid-19 travel conditions) in fact display the club’s lack of interest in the player’s
services. Furthermore, the Chamber wished to underscore that the player did react immediately
after receiving the flight ticket (player’s letter of 13 August 2021) and, once again, on 27 August
2021, via his legal representative.
50. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber considered that the club breached the employment
contract on 1 July 2021, i.e. the day following the expiry of the loan agreement, by not resuming
the execution of the player’s contract. Thus, the player is entitled to receive from B a
compensation for breach of contract.
ii. Consequences
51. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of
the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
52. 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.
53. 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
Page 11
the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber firstly noted that the residual value
of the contract amounts to USD 251,666, i.e. the value of the contract as from 1 July 2021 until 10
September 2025 and that the compensation clause (clause 5.5.10 of the contract) states that the
compensation payable by the party in breach to the counterparty shall amount to USD 1,000,000.
In this context, considering the difference between both amounts (the latter representing a figure
equal to 400% of the former), the DRC decided that the compensation clause provides for an
amount that is excessive, non-proportionate and, thus, shall be reduced. In the present scenario,
given that reducing it by a specific percentage would be rather arbitrary and considering that art.
17 of the Regulations provides a comfortable legal framework within which compensations for
breach of contract are calculated, the Chamber determined that the compensation due to the
player shall be calculated in accordance with art. 17 of the RSTP.
54. 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.
55. 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 USD 251,666, (i.e. 50 monthly salaries of USD 1,666 each, as from July 2021 until August
2025, plus 10 days of September 2025, calculated on a pro-rata basis) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
56. 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.
57. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed and, therefore, was
unable to mitigate his damages.
58. 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 USD 251,666 to the
player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
59. Lastly, the Chamber stressed that, considering that the player failed to request to be awarded any
default interest, no default interest can be awarded to the latter in application of the legal
principle ne ultra petita.
Page 12
iii. Sporting sanctions
60. The Chamber noted that the Respondent had also, on several occasions in the recent past, been
held liable by the Football Tribunal for the early termination of the employment contracts without
just cause, namely in the following cases:
a. FPSD-xxxx/xxx, DRC Decision of 27 January 2022;
b. FPSD-xxxx/xxx, DRC Decision of 24 March 2022.
c. FPSD-xxxx/xxx, DRC Decision of 24 March 2022;
61. Under article 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation,
sporting sanctions shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract or found to be
inducing a breach of contract during the protected period.
62. As to the protected period, this is defined in the Regulations as “a period of three entire seasons
or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two
years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is
concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
63. In the present case, considering that the Claimant player, Mr A, was born on 12 December 1992
and that he signed the contract with the Respondent club on 11 March 2019, the protected period
would last 3 entire seasons or 3 years (whichever came first), considering that the contract was
signed prior to the 28th birthday of the player (the 2018/2019 season in Country B was the season
of his 25th birthday).
64. Thus, considering that the breach in the case at hand occurred on 1 July 2021 and that -at that
moment in time- neither 3 entire seasons nor 3 years had elapsed since the date on which the
contractual relationship started, the DRC determined that the breach occurred during the
protected period and, consequently, the sanction contemplated under art. 17 para. 4 of the
Regulations should apply, i.e. the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall be banned from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and
consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision.
65. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with article 24 par. 3 lit.
a) of the Regulations, the consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in due time may be
excluded where the Football Tribunal has imposed a sporting sanction on the basis of article 17 in
the same case. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that the consequences for failure to pay
relevant amounts in due time envisaged by art. 24 of the Regulations were excluded in the present
matter, and that should the Respondent fail to timely comply with this decision, it would be for
Page 13
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to adopt the necessary measures in accordance with the FIFA
Disciplinary Code.
d. Costs
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant USD 251,666 as compensation for breach of
contract.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
Page 14
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
7.
If full payment is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall
be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
Page 15
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 16