Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 15 May 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player A
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member
Alexandra Gomez Bruinewoud (Uruguay & the Netherlands), member
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi (Qatar), member
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
Player A, Country A
Represented by
RESPONDENT:
Club B, Country B
pg. 2
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 14 July 2021, the Player A from country A (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the
country B club B (hereinafter: Respondent or club) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the date of signature until
31 May 2025.
2.
According to art. 3 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the
following net remuneration:
-
EUR 150,000 net as a down payment (of which EUR 100,000 net on 13 July 2021 and
EUR 50,000 net on 2 August 2021);
-
For the season 2021/2022:
o EUR 600,000 net as annual salary (payable in 10 instalments of EUR 60,000
net each between August 2021 and May 2022);
o CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net per month as accommodation and car
allowance;
-
For the season 2022/2023:
o EUR 610,000 net as annual salary (payable in 10 instalments of EUR 61,000
net each between August 2022 and May 2023);
o CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net per month as accommodation and car
allowance;
-
For the season 2023/2024:
o EUR 610,000 net as annual salary (payable in 10 instalments of EUR 61,000
net each between August 2023 and May 2024);
o CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net per month as accommodation and car
allowance;
-
For the season 2024/2025:
o EUR 620,000 net as annual salary (payable in 10 instalments of EUR 62,000
net each between August 2024 and May 2025);
o CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net per month as accommodation and car
allowance.
3.
On 4 January 2022, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
EUR 180,000 net (salaries for October 2021, November 2021 and December 2021) plus
CURRENCY COUNTRY B 75,000 net (accommodation allowances between July 2021 and
December 2021), granting a 15-day deadline to remedy the alleged breach.
4.
On 19 April 2022, the Claimant once again put the Respondent in default of payment of
EUR 180,000 net (this time referring to the salaries for January 2022, February 2022 and
pg. 3
March 2022) and CURRENCY COUNTRY B 37,500 net (accommodation allowances between
January 2022 and March 2022), granting a 15-day deadline to remedy the alleged breach.
5.
At an unspecified date, the Respondent made a partial payment of the abovementioned
amounts.
6.
On 29 April 2022, the Claimant withdrew his default notice.
7.
On 9 June 2022, the Claimant issued one last default notice for the amount of EUR 240,000
net, corresponding to four monthly salaries between February 2022 and May 2022,
granting a deadline of 15 days to remedy the alleged breach.
8.
On 30 June 2022, the Claimant terminated the Contract unilaterally.
9.
On 2 July 2022, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Club C country C
(hereinafter: New Club 1), valid as from the date of signature until
30 June 2024 and foreseeing the following remuneration (hereinafter: New Contract 1):
-
CURRENCY COUNTRY C 15,500 per week;
-
Performance bonus for the following individual achievements (whereas “1 pt” is
awarded per goal and “0.5 pt” is awarded per assist):
o 10 pts: CURRENCY COUNTRY C 23,500;
o 15pts: CURRENCY COUNTRY C 44,000;
o 20pts: CURRENCY COUNTRY C 58,800;
-
Sign-on fee of CURRENCY COUNTRY C 156,000 payable in two equal instalments of
CURRENCY
COUNTRY
C
78,000
on
28 July 2022 and 28 July 2023 respectively.
10. On 9 August 2023, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Club D country D
(hereinafter: New Club 2) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2026 and
foreseeing a monthly remuneration of (hereinafter: New Contract 2):
-
EUR 69,000 if New Club 2 plays in Ligue 1;
EUR 39,000 if New Club 2 plays in Ligue 2.
pg. 4
II. Proceedings before FIFA
11. On 26 February 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
12. In his claim, the player argued that the Respondent failed to pay him in excess of 4 monthly
salaries by the time the Contract was terminated, despite having been put in default several
times and being granted a final deadline of 15 days to remedy the default.
13. The Claimant, therefore, argued that he had just cause to terminate the Contract
prematurely in accordance with art. 14bis RSTP.
14. The following request for relief was formulated by the Claimant, taking into consideration
the two new contracts signed following the contractual termination:
-
Outstanding remuneration of EUR 240,000 net plus 12,500 net plus interest of 5%
as from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment;
-
Compensation of EUR 1,019,969.36 net plus CURRENCY COUNTRY B 437,500 net
plus interest of 5% as from 1 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
15. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide a position to the
present claim.
pg. 5
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. 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 26 February 2024 and
submitted for decision on 15 May 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
March 2023 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.
17. 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 February 2024 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.
18. 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 (February 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 February 2024, the February 2024
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
19. 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
20. 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 above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 6
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
21. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the present dispute concerned the premature
termination of an employment contract between a player and a club due to alleged
overdue payables.
22. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether, based
on the evidence contained on file, the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the Contract before its term, and what the consequences of such premature contractual
termination might be.
23. Prior to entering the analysis of the matter, the Chamber recalled the parties’ submissions,
with the Claimant, on one hand, arguing that the Respondent failed to remit four monthly
salaries between February 2022 and May 2022, as well as one accommodation allowance
for the month of June 2022, thus giving rise to just cause under art. 14bis of the Regulations.
24. The Respondent, on the other hand, failed to provide a position to the claim.
25. At this stage, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the wording of art. 13 par. 5 of
the Regulations, pursuant to which a party that asserts a certain fact also bears the burden
of proving its veracity.
26. Equally, the Chamber wished to refer to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations,
pursuant to which a player has just cause to unilaterally terminate his employment
contract where a club unlawfully fails to pay at least two monthly salaries on their due
dates, provided that the player has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted
a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial
obligation(s).
27. The Chamber pointed out that the Respondent bore the burden of proving that it had
complied with the financial obligations of the Contract. Notwithstanding, the Respondent,
by failing to provide a position to the claim, and consequently submit any evidence to
corroborate that it had, indeed, complied with the financial obligations of the Contract, fell
short of meeting the requisite burden of proof.
28. Thus, the Chamber was able to conclude that the formal requirements of art. 14bis par. 1
of the Regulations were met in the case at hand – that is, more than two monthly salaries
remained outstanding, despite the Claimant providing a grace period starting as from the
written default notice on 9 June 2022, before unilaterally terminating the Contract on
30 June 2022.
29. Therefore, the Claimant was held to have had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the
Contract before its term.
pg. 7
ii. Consequences
30. 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.
31. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to four monthly
salaries and one monthly accommodation and car allowance under the Contract,
amounting to EUR 240,000 net and CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net.
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e.
EUR 240,000 net and CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net.
33. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the following dates until the date of
effective payment:
-
On the amount of EUR 60,000 net, as from 1 March 2022;
-
On the amount of EUR 60,000 net, as from 1 April 2022;
-
On the amount of EUR 60,000 net, as from 1 May 2022;
-
On the amount of EUR 60,000 net, as from 1 June 2022;
-
On the amount of CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net, as from 1 July 2022.
34. 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.
35. 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
pg. 8
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract
at the basis of the matter at stake.
36. 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.
37. 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 1,840,000 net (i.e. the salaries over the residual term of
the Contract, or EUR 610,000 net for the season 2022/2023, plus EUR 610,000 net for the
season 2023/2024, plus EUR 620,000 net for the season 2024/2025) plus CURRENCY
COUNTRY B 437,500 net (i.e. 35 x CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net between July 2022 and
May 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
38. 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.
39. Indeed, the player found employment with both New Club 1 and New Club 2 in the
overlapping period with the prematurely terminated Contract with the Respondent.
40. Concerning such remuneration, the Chamber wished to preliminarily point out that the
Claimant included a calculation as to the mitigation in his amended request for relief, which
outlined the following “net” amounts (i.e., following the relevant tax-related deductions
made by the respective new clubs):
-
CURRENCY COUNTRY C 554,523.21 under New Contract 1;
EUR 343,791.42 under New Contract 2.
41. In respect of the mitigation under New Contract 1, it appears that the Claimant had not
included in his calculation the signature bonus to which he was entitled with New Club 1 of
CURRENCY COUNTRY C 156,000. Given that there appeared to be no evidence on file
according to which the relevant amount could be converted to “net” (as with the salaries,
since the Claimant only provided proofs of payment as from August 2022), the Chamber
pg. 9
deemed that the integral amount of the signature bonus shall be included in the calculation
for mitigation.
42. Furthermore, the Chamber opined that the Claimant’s calculation of the remuneration
under New Contract 2 appeared incorrect as it used the speculative figure for
remuneration assuming that New Club 2 would be relegated for the season 2024/2025.
43. Since the Claimant failed to adduce the relevant evidence corroborating that New Club 2
had indeed been relegated (thus failing to meet the burden of proving that a lower
mitigation would be applicable), the Chamber decided to calculate the total remuneration
under New Contract 2 while using the same remuneration as in the first season thereunder
(EUR 69,000 gross = EUR 31,568.18 net)
44. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 1,513,714.93 net, that is, CURRENCY COUNTRY C 710,523.21 net (= EUR
822,673.53 net) under New Contract 1 plus EUR 691,041.40 net under New Contract 2,
leading to a total mitigation of the Claimant’s damages of EUR 1,513,714.93 net.
45. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore
decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
46. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of
EUR 183,000 net plus CURRENCY COUNTRY B 37,500 net, i.e. three times the monthly
remuneration of the player at the time the Contract was terminated, plus three monthly
accommodation and car allowances.
47. 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 509,285.07 net (i.e. EUR 1,840,000 net minus EUR 1,513,714.93 net plus EUR 183,000
net) plus CURRENCY COUNTRY B 475,000 net (i.e. CURRENCY COUNTRY B 437,500 plus
CURRENCY COUNTRY B 37,500 net) to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
48. 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 1 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Sporting sanctions / application of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations
pg. 10
49. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of
contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall
be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
50. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the
Regulations, which stipulates inter alia that the protected period shall last “for 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”.
51. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the player was born on 10 July 1997 and the
relevant Contract with the Respondent was concluded on 14 July 2021. Furthermore, the
Chamber Judge noted that the club unlawfully breached the Contract, leading to a
unilateral termination with just cause by the Claimant on 21 July 2022. The breach of
contract by the club had therefore occurred within the protected period.
52. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the club had already been held liable of breaching
other players’ contracts without just cause in several recent occasions, in particular in cases
FPSD-xxxx (decision passed 4 August 2022), FPSD-xxxx (decision passed
6 September 2022), FPSD-xxxx (decision passed 29 September 2022), FPSD-xxxxx (decision
passed 9 November 2023).
53. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the
club shall be sanctioned with a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the next two entire and consecutive registration periods.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC wished to remark that in accordance with art. 24
par. 3 of the Regulations, the aforementioned consequences may be excluded where the
pg. 11
pertinent FIFA deciding body has already imposed on the same party a sporting sanction
on the basis of article 12bis, 17 or 18quater of the Regulations.
57. In this respect, considering that art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations applies in the matter, the
Chamber established that art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations shall not apply, insofar as in case
the Respondent fails to comply with the decision at hand, the application of a further ban
from registering any new players on top of the one already being served by the Respondent
would be moot and against the spirit of the Regulations, in particularly the enforcement
mechanism established under art. 24 of the Regulations.
58. In view of the above, the DRC decided that if the aforementioned sum plus interest is not
paid within 45 days of notification of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request of the Claimant, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and
formal decision.
59. 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.
d. Costs
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club B , must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 240,000 net plus CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net as outstanding
remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 60,000 net as from 1 March 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 60,000 net as from 1 April 2022 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 60,000 net as from 1 May 2022 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 60,000 net as from 1 June 2022 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of CURRENCY COUNTRY B 12,500 net as from 1 July
2022 until the date of effective payment.
- EUR 509,285.07 net plus CURRENCY COUNTRY B 475,000 net as compensation for
breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2022 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) 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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
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 Governing the Football
Tribunal).
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
pg. 14