Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 July 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player A
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil / Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Club A, Country A
Represented by
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Player A, Country C
Represented by
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Club B., Country B
Represented by
Page 3
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 24 February 2019, the Country C club C (hereinafter, Club C) and Club A (hereinafter, Club A)
agreed upon the transfer of the player A country C (hereinafter, the Player) in exchange for EUR
15,000,000 net, payable on 1 March 2019.
2.
On 27 February 2019, Club A and Agency A concluded an Intermediary Agreement in accordance
with which the latter was hired to negotiate and secure the conclusion of an employment agreement
with the Player, in exchange for EUR 998,000 net, payable on 31 March 2019.
3.
On 28 February 2019 Club A and the Player concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the
Contract) valid as from 28 February 2019 until 31 December 2023.
4.
According to Appendix Nº 1 of the Contract, Club A and the Player agreed upon the following salary:
1. The Club pays the Player a salary in the following gross amounts:
1.1. 1 863 354,00 (one million eight hundred sixty three thousand three hundred fifty-four) Euros,
which is equivalent to 1 500 000 (one million five hundred thousand) Euros net, as signing in
fee to be paid until March 31, 2019.
1.2. 82 815,00 (eighty-two thousand eight hundred fifteen) Euros monthly before tax for the period
between 28.02.2019 and 31.12.2019, which is equivalent of 800 000,00 (eight hundred
thousand) Euros net annually.
1.3. 93 167,00 (ninety-three thousand one hundred sixty-seven) Euros monthly before tax for the
period between 01.01.2020 and 31.12.2020, which is equivalent of 900 000,00 (nine hundred
thousand) Euros net annually.
1.4. 103 519,00 (one hundred three thousand five hundred nineteen) Euros monthly before tax for
the period 01.01.2021 and 31.12.2021, which is equivalent of 1 000 000,00 (one million) Euros
net annually.
1.5. 113 871,00 (one hundred thirteen thousand eight hundred seventy-one) Euros monthly before
tax for the period between 01.01.2022 and 31.12.2022, which is equivalent of 1 100 000,00
(one million one hundred thousand) Euros net annually.
1.6. 124 223,00 (one hundred twenty-four thousand two hundred twenty-three) Euros monthly
before tax for the period between 01.01.2023 and 31.12.2023, which is equivalent of 1 200
000,00 (one million two hundred thousand) Euros net annually.
5.
As per Clause 7.4 of the Contract,
The compensation due in case of premature termination of the present Contract is the following:
Page 4
7.4.1. If the Club is a party in breach of the Contract without just cause, the Club shall pay to the Player
compensation calculated under the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players binding at the
moment of this contract signing. Notwithstanding any other provisions contained in this Contract, Player
agrees to use his best reasonable, diligent and good faith efforts to mitigate the Club’s obligation to pay
compensation under this article of the Contract by seeking comparable employment. The amount of the
Club’s obligation to pay compensation shall be reduced by the amount of the Player’s remuneration from
such comparable employment.
7.4.2. If the Player is a party in breach of the Contract without just cause, the Player shall instantly fully
indemnify the Club, pursuant to the legal principle of restitutio in integrum (positive interest), but in any
event the damages amount shall not be less than 150,000,000 (one hundred fifty million) Euros. The
Parties have given careful consideration to the damages it would incur, thus the abovementioned amount
is considered by the Parties to be a genuine pre-estimate of such losses and do not constitute excessive,
extravagant or oppressive. Thus, the Parties agree and acknowledge that the damages amount stated
above is fair an reasonable and therefore the parties expressly waive any right to challenge the
enforceability of this provision of the Contract.
6.
On 24 February 2022, Country G invaded country A.
7.
On 7 March 2022, the Bureau of FIFA Council approved temporary amendments to the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, introducing a new Annexe 7 to the Regulations,
according to which foreign players registered with Country G and Country A clubs were given the
right to unilaterally suspend their contracts, initially until the end of the 2022/2023 season. The
applicability of Annexe 7 RSTP was later extended, with the last extension applying to the 2024/2025
season.
8.
On 4 August 2022, the Club D, country D (hereinafter, Club D) sent a letter signed by the Player to
Club A informing that he was activating the suspension of the Contract until 30 June 2023.
9.
Also on 4 August 2022, the Player was transferred to Club D under the transfer instruction “engage
out of contract free of payment”, and the Player and Club D concluded an employment agreement
valid until 30 June 2023.
10. On 27 January 2023, the Club E, country E (hereinafter, Club E ) and Club D agreed upon the transfer
of the Player in exchange for EUR 1,000,000.
11. On 28 January 2023, Club E and the Player concluded an employment agreement valid until 30 June
2023.
12. On 22 May 2023, FIFA issued its Circular letter nº 1849 by way of which it extended the possibility
for foreign players and coaches employed at clubs affiliated to the UAF and the URS to suspend their
contracts until 30 June 2024, provided that they informed their clubs in writing by 1 July 2023.
Page 5
13. According to the Player, on 23 June 2023 he sent an e-mail to the e-mail address
******@*******.com attaching a letter signed by himself and his agent, Agent A (hereinafter, Agent
A) informing Club A that “he is activating the suspension of the contract with Club A until December 31,
2023”.
14. On 3 July 2023, Club A sent a default notice to the Player stating, inter alia, the following:
“Please note that the temporary suspension of your employment contract, as stipulated in Annex 7 to the
FIFA RSTP, expired on 30 June 2023. No official notice regarding the suspension of your contract for the
upcoming season has been received from you within the deadline specified in Article 2 paragraph 2 of
Annex 7 to the FIFA RSTP (May 2023 edition). Consequently, starting from 01 July 2023, you are required
to fulfill your contractual obligations as a player of the Club. This includes participating in the training
sessions with the Club’s team.
In view of the above, we hereby demand your immediate arrival at the team’s location, namely ********,
Country F as soon as possible but no later than on 7 July 2023 (…).
Please be aware that if you disregard this notification, the Club retains the right to pursue all available
legal remedies to enforce your obligations as a player under the terms of your employment contract”.
15. On 12 July 2023, the Player was transferred from Club E to Club A under the transfer instruction
“engage out of contract free of payment”.
16. On 14 July 2023, Club A General Director, Mr ***** (hereinafter, Mr *****) sent the above default
notice to Mr agent A via WhatsApp.
17. Also on 14 July 2023, Mr Agent A sent to Mr ***** a letter, which was not signed and was dated
7 July 2023, informing, inter alia, the following:
“In response to the notification sent by Club A on July 03, 2023, notifiers state the following: The athlete
(…) and as previously communicated, is interested in the suspension of the contract of work with Club A
until 31 December, 2023”.
18. On 31 July 2023, Club A sent a new default notice to the Player where reference to the previous letter
was made, and where Club A informed him that:
“(…) In view of the above, we hereby demand your immediate arrival at the team’s location in Country A,
as soon as possible but no later than 6 August 2023. This is the last and non-exhaustive extendable
deadline to comply with your contractual obligations. Please be aware that if you disregard this second
notification, the Club will terminate your employment contract with just cause, in which case we will also
seek compensation for unilateral contract termination”.
19. On 3 August 2023, Mr Agent A replied via e-mail to the above-mentioned communication as follows:
Page 6
“The athlete Player A -, as previously communicated on June 23, 2023 and 7 July, 2023 (in response to the
notification sent by the club on July 3, 2023) communicates, once again, which is very important for the
athlete, he has chosen to suspend its contract with Club A until December 31, 2023, as authorized by
Appendix 7 of the FIFA RSTP (May 2023 version)”.
20. On 3 and 4 August 2023, Mr **** and Mr Agent A had the following conversation via WhatsApp:
3 August 2023
[Mr *****]: “******@****.net. Can you send your letters to this mail?
[Mr Agent A]: “Ok”.
4 August 2023
[Mr Agent A]: “***** good afternoon, as I communicated Player A is about to transfer to a club what
wants to use Fifa regulations to sign the player. But there is a club that wants to sign Player A but wants
to give financial compensation to Club A, what would be the amount?”
[Mr *****]: “*****@******.com, ********@******.com. Hi Mr *****, can you send one more time
answer for our letters to this mail because the previous one was incorrect”.
[Mr Agent A]: “Ok”.
[Mr *****] (in response to Mr. Agent As inquiry): “Euro 8 mln”.
[Mr Agent A]: “he only has 5 months of contract, I believe the maximum they can reach is 2M”.
[Mr ****]: “If you are asking Euro 10 mln signing and agent fees why I can not ask Euro 8 mln? But we
have paid Euro 17 mln for him. What have you spend for the player?”.
[Mr Agent A]: “I’ve taken care of him since he was 8 years old, I spent my time and invested all I had of
resources”.
21. On 7 August 2023, Club A unilaterally terminated the Contract, informing the Player about the
following:
“In response [to the Player’s communication of 3 August 2023], we must stress that we have never
received from you any suspension notification before 3 August, neither on 22 June 2023 nor later. Your
suspension of the employment contract referred to Annex 7 to FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players was made manifestly late on 3 August 2023 and thus beyond the permitted deadline 1 July
2023. We regard your attempt to suspend the Contract made in August as a clear example of abuse of
Annex 7. Your attempt to backdate the suspension notice constitutes a bad faith behavior and abuse of
rights.
Page 7
On this basis we consider suspension of your employment contract with Club A null and void per se and
without any legal effect.
I also refer you to my notification of 3 July 2023 and second notification of 31 July 2023, by virtue of which
the Club requested you twice to join Club A team for the trainings. Up to this date you refused to act
accordingly, which is a serious breach of the Contract. Moreover, your intent to sign with another club
does not leave any room for further doubts showing your refusal to fulfill the Contract.
On this basis Club A terminates your employment contract with an immediate effect. We also reserve the
right to request a compensation from you for the breach of the Contract without just cause”.
22. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System, on 10 August 2023 the
Player and the Country B Club B (hereinafter, Club B) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter, the New Contract) valid as from 10 August 2023 until 30 June 2027.
23. In accordance with Clause 3 of the New Contract, the Player is entitled to receive the following fixed
financial benefits:
i.
As sign-on fee, EUR 3,100,000 net in the following instalments:
• EUR 1,100,000 on 31 August 2024; and
• EUR 2,000,000 on 31 December 2024.
ii.
As salary, the amount of EUR 2,800,000 net per season (i.e., total of EUR 11,200,000 net) paid in
ten equal instalments of EUR 280,000 net on 31 August, 1 October, 31 October, 30 November,
5 January, 31 January, 28 February, 5 April, 30 April and 31 May of each season.
24. On 11 August 2023, Club B entered a transfer instruction in TMS to engage the Player permanently.
Club B uploaded as proof of last contract end date the email dated 23 June 2023 allegedly sent to
Club A.
25. On 15 August 2023, Club A sent a communication to TMS Help Desk and Regulatory Compliance
indicating, with regard to the transfer instruction introduced by Club B in TMS (“engage out of contract
free of payment”), that it did not recognize the screenshot of the email dated 23 January 2023, and
that it appeared to be fabricated.
26. On 17 August 2023, the UAF requested the cancellation of the transfer stating that “Club A considers
the suspension of the Player’s employment contract on the basis of Annex 7 null and void per se and
without any legal effect. The employment contract was unilaterally terminated by Club A on 7 August
2023”.
Page 8
27. On 18 August 2023, the TFF uploaded a communication into TMS by way of which they objected the
cancellation request and requested FIFA to confirm the registration.
28. On 21 August 2023, FIFA Regulatory Compliance rejected the cancellation of the transfer, and the
Player was registered with Club B.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
29. On 19 September 2023, Club A filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of Club A
30. According to Club A, the Player did not suspend the Contract in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of
Annex 7 of the Regulations, as he did not inform in writing about the suspension of the Contract
before 1 July 2023. In this respect, Club A alleged that it never received the email from 23 June 2023,
and sustained that the photographic evidence produced by the Player and Club B in FIFA TMS is
allegedly fake/fraudulent/fabricated and, consequently, it did not recognize it.
31. Club A alleged that while in the first letter of the Player (sent on 14 July 2023 but dated 7 July 2023)
he stated that “he is interested in the suspension of the contract”, it was not until the second latter
(dated 3 August 2023) when the Player “(…) indicated for the first time that he had allegedly suspended
his Contract with Club A via notification send to the latter on 23 June 2023”, and that “had he suspended
the Contract via email on 23 June 2023, he would have indicated so in his response to Club A r’s letter of
3 July 2023 and his agent, Mr. **** would have mentioned the same in the WhatsApp conversations with
Mr. ****”.
32. Club A sustained that the WhatsApp conversation between Mr Agent A and Mr **** (dated 4 August
2023) demonstrates that the Player was aware that he never suspended the Contract on 23 June
2023, since Mr Agent A recognized in the said conversation that the Player still had five months
remaining on the Contract and, otherwise, “the question of the interested club willing to pay a potential
transfer fee to Club A does not arise”.
33. Club A asserted that it requested FIFA to demand the .eml version of the email both from the Player
and Club B and that, till date, neither of them has provided it which, according to Club A “speaks
volumes about their alleged fraudulent and possible criminal act”.
34. Club A also argued that even though the Contract did not provide for any email for communications,
the email ****@***** is mentioned in the first page of the Contract and is used by Club A at all
times to communicate with the Player.
35. Club A sustained that it had just cause “as [the Player] never turned up for training” despite “Club A
had given him two opportunities to resume duties with the Club to fulfil his contractual obligations”.
Page 9
36. Club A claimed being entitled to EUR 150,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract, based on
Clause 7.4.2 of the Contract. According to Club A, the Football Tribunal should not outrightly
disregard this clause but rather adjust it if deemed excessive, in which case the compensation
should be of EUR 15,000,000 net (i) “considering the last six months of his Contract”, (ii) that this was
the amount paid to Club C in exchange for the Player’s transfer, (iii) and that the current market
value of the Player is EUR 25,000,000 according to Transfermarkt and EUR 20,000,000 according to
CIES Football Observatory.
37. Subsidiarily, Club A asserted that the compensation shall be calculated according to Art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations, and figured the compensation in EUR 2,599,800 net based on the following
arguments:
• Club A alleged that it should be entitled to the average of what it would have paid the Player for
the period 1 July 2023 to 31 December 2023 and the salary that Club B are paying to the Player
for the same period, which Club A figured at EUR 1,000,000 net.
• Club A further asserted that the compensation should be increased in EUR 1,500,000 net,
representing the non-amortized cost of the transfer fee paid to Club C, as well EUR 998,000 net
corresponding to the amount paid and non-amortized to the Agency A when the Player was
signed from Club C.
• Club A also argued that the compensation should be increased, to the discretion of the Football
Tribunal, according to the specificity of sport and, in particular, due to the alleged abusive conduct
of the Player.
38. Club A also sustained that Club B should be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as per
Art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations. Also, that both the Player and Club B should be sanctioned for
allegedly having abused Annexe 7 and for having failed to tell the truth in these proceedings.
39. Club A finally argued that the Player should be ordered to reimburse EUR 450,000 net, which
corresponds to the pro rata calculation of the sign-on fee paid to the Player as from 1 July 2022 to
31 December 2023 (i.e., 18 months). According to Club A, “the reason for the payment of the sign-on
fee in 2019 was that Player A will play with Club A for the next five years. However, such a requirement
subsequently ceased to exist since July 2022” and “Thus, Player A is liable to reimburse this amount to
Club A otherwise the same would lead to unjust enrichment of Player A at the expense of Club Ar”.
40. Club A requested the following relief:
1. Club A terminated the Contract of Player with just cause on 7 August 2023.
2. As a consequence of the termination of the Contract with just cause by Club A, the Player is liable
under Article 17.1 of the FIFA RSTP to pay Club A:
i.
An amount of EUR 150,000,000 NET (one hundred fifty million euros) as foreseen in clause
7.4.2 of the Contract between the Player and Club A along with an interest of 5% p.a. as from
Page 10
8 August 2023 until the date of effective payment;
ii.
As an alternative to point i, an amount of EUR 15,000,000 NET (fifteen million euros) or an
amount that the Football Tribunal considers fair adjusting clause 7.4.2 of the Contract given
the circumstances of the case along with an interest of 5% p.a. as from 8 August 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
iii.
As an alternative to points i and ii, an amount of EUR 2,599,800 NET (two million five hundred
ninety-nine thousand eight hundred euros) plus any amount that the FIFA Football Tribunal
decides under the head of specificity of sport under Article 17.1 of the FIFA RSTP along with an
interest of 5% p.a. as from 8 August 2023 until the date of effective payment.
iv.
As an alternative to point iii, an amount to be decided at the discretion of the FIFA Football
Tribunal on the basis of circumstances of this case under Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP along with
an interest of 5% p.a. as from 8 August 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3. Club B is jointly and severally liable to pay any amount determined under point 2 above along with
the Player under Article 17.2 of the FIFA RSTP.
4. Separately and irrespective of points 1, 2 and 3 above, in all scenarios, to order the Player to
reimburse Club A an amount of EUR 450,000 NET (four hundred fifty thousand euros) along with
an interest of 5% p.a. as from 8 August 2023 until the date of effective payment representing the
pro rata amount of the total sign-on fee paid by Club A to the Player in 2019.
5. To impose appropriate disciplinary measures/sanctions on the Player under Article 17.3 of the FIFA
RSTP and sporting sanctions on Club B as mentioned in Article 17.4 of the FIFA RSTP.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Player
41. According to the Player, following the same procedure as in previous occasions, and after FIFA
issued the Circular letter nº 1849, of 22 May 2023, he sent an email to Club A on 23 June 2023
informing it that he was going to make use of the suspension of the Contract.
42. The Player argued that at the beginning of the war “Club A took the deliberate and irresponsible
attitude of calling its athletes back to Country A territory, when it was fully aware of the danger and risks
to which it was exposing them” and that “This situation, evidently, in itself, resulted in a total and
irreversible loss of confidence in the athlete towards Club A”.
43. According to the Player, this situation made him and his wife feel “harmful symptoms of a
psychological crisis due to exposure to the situation described”, reason why they sought for professional
assistance.
44. For the Player, the above facts constitute a serious and fair cause for the unilateral termination of
the Contract.
Page 11
45. The Player further argued that Club A misunderstood Annexe 7 of the Regulations, and is seeking
compensation under the pretext that they are having losses. The Player referred to an interview
where Mr ***** allegedly made public and open threats to other clubs when he said for ESPN that
“I would like to send a message to those clubs who are trying to sign our players without paying a transfer
fee, Club A will file claims for unjust enrichment against players or clubs who have enriched themselves
and benefited by obtaining a financial advantage (…)”.
46. The Player sustained that it was Club A itself who provided the email from 23 June 2023 and,
consequently, its existence cannot be disputed.
47. According to the Player, the mentioned email was sent to the same email address from which the
Player received the default notices (i.e., ****@****). Additionally, that Mr ***** requested Mr Agent
A via WhatsApp to address his letters to ****@****, and then to ****@**** and ****@****.
48. The Player considered it was for Club A to explain why this email was not found in their email box,
and that the Player cannot be responsible for this. The Player also referred to the technological
consequences of the war that might had caused this.
49. The Player further alleged that, in spite of the foregoing, his intention to suspend the Contract was
already known by Club A, given that “(…) the athlete has made all possibilities of suspension hitherto
permitted by FIFA, with his effective temporary transfer to Lyon and Club E. There is no way that Club A
did not previously know the athlete’s intention to suspend his employment contract”.
50. For the Player, the termination is only supported by a biased and partial report of one of Club A
employees. In this regard, the Player asserted that Club A have not produced any proof that the
email is not valid, and thus considered that he “validly suspended the contract with Club A”.
51. As to the alleged just cause of Club A to terminate the Contract, the Player asserted that it is not
disputed that country A law is applicable to the proceedings. In this regard, the Player referred to
CAS
2010/A/2252
where
it
was
established
that
“Under
Country
A labour law, the dismissal of an employee due to his absence from work is unlawful if a person has a
good reason to be absent. Lawful dismissal applies only if one can establish a person’s fault or guilt in
being absent”.
52. The Player alleged that, bearing in mind the above and considering the past and current situation in
Country A, he had a good reason for not returning to Club A.
53. The Player sustained that the agreed compensation of EUR 150,000,000 was “exorbitant”, and also
considered that there is no justification to the other amounts claimed subsidiarily.
54. The Player also denied Club A entitlement to be reimbursed with the sign-on fee paid to him.
55. The Player argued that Club A is interpreting the messages sent via WhatsApp between Mr Agent A
and Mr ****, since in these messages Mr Agent A only introduced two options: (i) a transfer on loan
Page 12
on the basis of Annexe 7 of the Regulations; or (ii) a definitive transfer against compensation to
“avoid tumultuous environment with the aim of obtaining advantages to which he was not entitled”.
56. According to the Player, “Club A is manipulating the content of the messages sent by Agent A to****,
trying to provide non-existent proof that Agent A himself admitted that the athlete could not transfer
temporarily, on loan”.
57. The Player sustained that he could not provide the .eml version of the email, as he is an iCloud user,
which does not include the .eml extension. In this respect, it should be Club A who, as per art. 13
par. 5 of the Regulations, should have demonstrated its position.
58. The Player also rejected the imposition of any sporting sanctions given that the alleged breach of
contract occurred outside the protected period.
59. The Player requested the following relief:
a) That termination of athlete’s employment contract by Club A on August 7, 2023 was illegal and
without just cause;
b) As a consequence of the illegal and unfair termination of the athlete’s contract, there is no amount
to be paid in any way by him to Club A;
c) Due to the inconsistency and untruth of the arguments used by Club A, no form of sanction is
applied to the athlete.
60. In his counterclaim against Club A, the Player alleged that few days before the war started, the
players of Club A were outside Country A carrying out their pre-season training in Country B, and
that in spite of the threat of an imminent war, Club A ordered their players to return to Country A.
61. According to the Player, Club A refused to release their players and assured them that, even in case
of a conflict, there was a safe and effective evacuation plan in order to ensure everyone’s safety.
62. The Player alleged that he decided to stay on account of the above and also fearing that, if he leaved
the country, it could be interpreted as a breach of contract subject to punishment.
63. The Player further argued that when the war started on 24 February 2022, the players realized there
was no evacuation plan at all, that they were “left to fend themselves”.
64. The Player also asserted that some of the Country C players of Club A refugeed in a hotel that had
a bunker and recorded a video asking the Country C government for help to leave the country.
65. According to the Player, “It is a matter of high relevance to bear in mind that Club A took the deliberate
and irresponsible attitude of calling its athletes back to Country A territory, when it was fully aware of the
Page 13
danger and risks to which it was exposing them”. For the Player, Club A failed to tell the truth, which
lead to a “total and irreversible loss of confidence in the athlete towards Club A r”.
66. The Player sustained that he decided not to refuge at the hotel, but to leave Country A via terrestrial
and, after two “intense and fear” days, he and his family managed to leave the country across the
border with Poland, were they stayed for a few days to help the refugees.
67. The Player finally alleged that “It is true that the situation -which could have been easily avoided, if the
club had been prudent, responsible and diligent towards the preservation if its athletes- constitutes a very
serious and fair cause for the unilateral termination of the contract of work signed between the parties,
through the exclusive fault of Club A, in accordance with the applicable FIFA regulations”.
68. On account of the above arguments together with the ones submitted with his claim, the Player
concluded that “The contract must be declared terminated with a retroactive date to February 2022, the
date on which the acts were carried out by Club A that exposed the life, physical and psychological integrity
of the complainant and his wife to a high degree of risk, thus determining the irretrievable loss of trust for
the employer, and thus characterizing the just cause for termination of contract”.
69. Based on the above, the Player requested the following:
“Based on all the grounds that have been set out, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber is requested to
declare that the employment contract signed between the parties was terminated with just cause on
February 2022, given the behaviour adopted by Club A, as well as for the acts carried out by him to the
detriment of the counterclaimant athlete”.
c.
Position of Club B
70. In its reply to the claim, Club B argued that the Player is not the first player they have signed after
the introduction of Annexe 7 of the Regulations, and that before signing the Player, they asked him
to provide all details regarding the alleged suspension of his contract with Club A.
71. In this regard, Club B alleged that “The Player first shared the screenshot of his e-mail that was sent to
Club A on 23.06.2023. right afterwards, on the 3rd of August 2023, the Player forwarded the e-mail that
was sent to Club A. Finally, in order to avoid any kind of further problems, Club B requested to have video
evidence of the Player’s access to his e-mail account to show the sent e-mail, which arrived at the
possession of Club B on the 5th of August 2023. The phone of the player was physically checked by
representatives of the club to see that the email was sent”.
72. According to Club B, “the explanations made by Club A in its Appeal Brief are misleading and made with
absolute bad faith”.
73. Club B further asserted that they did not fabricate any documents neither tried to gain financial
benefit by any nature, and that it is for the Club A to prove such allegations.
Page 14
74. Club B also argued that bearing in mind the public threats of Mr **** on ESPN, they conducted the
Player’s registration process with due diligence, and they have not obtained an unjust enrichment
since “Club B enriched itself by transferring the Player due to Player’s services to be given for the team
however, enrichment shall not be considered as unjust as Club B have a just cause to register the Player
where the Player formally suspended his contract according to Annex 7 of the FIFA RSTP”.
75. According to Club B, the amounts claimed by Club A are “absolutely excessive and totally groundless”.
Club B also alleged that the penalty of EUR 150,000,000 agreed is excessive and that it is null and
void, and that if any amount should be payable as compensation, it should be calculated based on
the principle of positive interest as per art. 17 of the Regulations.
76. According to Club B, “Club A failed to present any objective elements for its damages and based its claim
on an excessive liquidated damages clause. Again, this is a mere try to throw a net and fish… but with no
basis at all”.
77. Club B also argued that when Club A terminated the Player’s Contract, there were only four months
remaining. In this regard, Club B asserted that Club A did not prove their interest in maintaining the
Player’s services, and that no club would have paid a transfer fee for a player that would be a free
agent in four months what, according to Club B, would demonstrate the inexistence of lost
opportunities.
78. Club B lastly sustained that the joint liability provided in art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations should not
be applicable in this case, as it “took care with his unusual situation with a high degree of diligence” and
that “in the present case Club B did not “profit” from the alleged contractual violation of the Player”.
79. Based on the above, Club B requested the following relief:
1. To disregard and disallow all and any of the requests brought by the Claimant.
2. To condemn the Claimant to all and every cost that FIFA might understand that his proceeding has
incurred in.
d. Reply of Club A to the counterclaim
80. In his reply to the counterclaim, Club A alleged that when the war began, it made all the efforts to
ensure safety and security of all its football players, coaches and staff, under the strict instructions
of the government and law enforcement agencies on the actions that it could undertake at that time.
81. Club A also argued that the Player did not provide any evidence that he requested to be released
from the Contract in spite of accusing it of not having released him.
Page 15
82. According to Club A, “it is not responsible for the deplorable actions of the Country F Federation on
Country B, and thus, it cannot be held liable for any alleged problems caused to the Player due to the war
as it was undergoing similar and in fact more serious challenges at that time”.
83. With regard to the Player’s allegation that the Contract was terminated by Club A in February 2022,
Club A sustained that at any time did the Player ever mention that he had the intention of
terminating the Contract nor that Club A was responsible for violating it. In this regard, Club A argued
that, in case the Chamber considers that the Contract was indeed terminated in February 2022, the
Player has mitigated his damages for the period March 2022 until 7 August 2023 and, if needed be,
until 31 December 2023.
84. Club A insisted on the fact that the Player failed to produce an .eml version of the email allegedly
sent on 23 June 2023 in spite of the several requests in that regard and in spite of Mr **** having
requested him to direct all communications to *****@s********* and ***********@*****.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
85. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber) 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 19 September 2023 and submitted for decision on 11 July 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.
86. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (June 2024 edition), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Country A club and a
Country B player, with the intervention of a Country B club as the Player’s new club.
87. 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 (June 2024 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 19 September
2023, the May 2023 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
88. 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 16
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 TMS.
c.
Merits of the dispute
89. 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
90. The above having been established, the Chamber turned its attention to the substance of the matter,
and observed that this is a claim of a club against a player and his new club concerning the
termination of the employment relationship and the consequences deriving thereof. In this respect,
the Chamber also noted that the Player not only replied to the claim, but also lodged a counterclaim
against Club A.
91. The Chamber initially took note of the fact that the parties strongly disputed whether the Player
indeed sent the email dated 23 June 2023 informing Club A about the suspension of the Contract,
and whether the Contract was unilaterally terminated by Club A on 7 August 2023 or, as argued by
the Player, if it was terminated in February 2022 when Club A allegedly exposed his life and physical
integrity when calling him back in Country A just before the war started.
92. On account of the above, and for the sake of clarity, the Chamber considered that the following
questions should be tackled:
I.
I.
Did the Player validly suspend the Contract?
II.
Which party terminated the Contract?
III.
Did Club A have just cause to terminate the Contract?
Did the Player validly suspend the Contract?
93. For the assessment of this first question, the Chamber wished to recall the following facts, which
were proved either by the parties or confirmed by the information contained in TMS:
• On 28 February 2019, the Player and Club A concluded the Contract, valid until
31 December 2023. The email address *****@***** is contained in the header of the Contract.
• On 4 August 2022, the Player, through Club D, suspended the Contract and concluded an
employment agreement with Olympique, valid until 30 June 2023.
Page 17
• On 27 January 2023, Club D and Club E agreed on the transfer of the Player, and on 28 January
2023 the Player and Club E concluded an employment contract, valid until 30 June 2023.
• According to the information contained in TMS, the official e-mail addresses of Club A are the
following: ******@Club A.com, *****@Club A.com, *****@Club A.com, and ******@Club
A.com.
• On 3 July 2023, Club A sent via e-mail the first default letter to the Player. This e-mail was sent
by ******@Club A.com.
• On 12 July 2023, the Player was transferred from Club E to Club A under the transfer instruction
“engage out of contract free of payment”.
• On 14 July 2023, Mr **** sent the above default notice to the Player’s agent, Mr Agent A, via
WhatsApp.
• Also on 14 July 2023, and in response to the letter of 3 July 2023, Mr Agent A sent Mr. **** a
letter (dated 7 July 2023 and not signed) via WhatsApp informing that “as previously
communicated, [the Player] is interested in the suspension of the contract (…)”.
• On 31 July 2023, Club A sent a second default notice to the Player. This default notice was also
sent, via e-mail, from **** @ **** .
• On 3 August 2023, the Player replied that “as previously communicated on June 23, 2023 and 7
July, 2023 (…) he has chosen to suspend its contract (…)”.
• On 3 and 4 August 2023, Mr **** and Mr Agent A had a conversation via WhatsApp where the
former asked the latter to address his communications to ******@****.net and, then, to
******@Club A.com and ******@Club A.com. Mr **** and Mr Agent A also discussed about
the transfer fee that Club A would be willing to accept to transfer the Player.
• On 7 August 2023, Club A terminated the Contract.
• On 10 August 2023, the Player and Club B concluded an employment agreement, valid until 30
June 2027.
94. The Chamber then observed that the Player argued that on 23 June 2023, he sent an email to Club
A, addressed to **** @**** , by way of which he suspended the Contract until 31 December 2023.
The Chamber also observed that, according to Club A, it never received this email, and the first time
it saw it was with the transfer instruction in TMS initiated by Club B.
95. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber then referred to FIFA’s Circular letter nº 1849, of
22 May 2023, by way of which FIFA introduced further temporary measures concerning employment
Page 18
contracts of foreign players and coaches with clubs affiliated to the Country A and the Country G. In
particular, the Chamber observed that, according to the said Circular letter, “The recent amendments
to the regulatory framework entail the temporary extension of one of the key measures of Annexe 7 of the
RSTP, namely the right for foreign players and coaches who have left the territory of Country A and Country
G due to the conflict and might not with to currently return in view of the situation, to unilaterally suspend
their contracts with clubs affiliated to the Country A Association of Football and the Football Union of
Country G until 30 June 2024. With the aim of ensuring that players and coaches exercise their right to
suspend their employment contracts in a clear and timely manner, the player or coach would need to
inform the club of the unilateral suspension in writing by 1 July 2023 in order to validly suspend the
employment contract”.
96. The above was reflected in art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 7 of the Regulations, in accordance with which “In
order to validly suspend the contract, the player or coach shall inform the club of the unilateral suspension
in writing by 1 July 2023 at the latest”.
97. The Chamber then referred to the Interpretative Note to Annexe 7 published alongside with FIFA
Circular letter nº 1849, as well as to the FIFA Commentary (cf. p. 638), where it is clarified that “For
the avoidance of doubt, “in writing” means written correspondence duly signed by the person suspending
the contract”.
98. The above having been established, the Chamber noted that it is not disputed between the parties
that the Player sent two letters to Club A on 14 July 2023 (dated 7 July 2023) and on 3 August 2023.
The Chamber, however, observed that Club A denied having received the Player’s email from 23 June
2023 by way of which, according to the Player, the Contract was suspended.
99. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber acknowledged that the crux of the dispute lied in the
assessment as to whether the mentioned email was effectively received by Club A. In doing so, the
Chamber considered that Club A not only denied having received the email of 23 June 2023, but also
raised serious doubts as to the authenticity of the screenshots of said email. Consequently, and
based on art 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber concluded that it was for the Player
and Club B to prove otherwise.
100. In this respect, the Chamber initially wished to point out that both the Player and Club B provided
very limited evidence as to the remittance of the said email, as the only evidence on file is a series
of screenshots provided by them, as well as IT reports that pointed in completely opposed
directions, and from which it could not be established whether the email had indeed been sent.
101. The Chamber then noted that, as argued by Club A, neither the Player nor Club B have been able to
produce the .eml version of the email allegedly sent despite the fact that (i) Club A requested it both
within the dispute relating to the Player’s ITC and then in its claim, and (ii) both the Player and Club
B were in possession of the email, as it was the Player himself who alleged having sent it and Club
B who argued that the Player forward it to it. Indeed, the Chamber failed to understand why the
Player and/or Club B did not present the .eml version of the email dated 23 June 2023, considering
that it was fundamental to their case.
Page 19
102. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Chamber then went to analyse the screenshots provided,
and observed that those provided by Club B showed the email outbox of the Player. In particular,
the Chamber noted that, in the outbox of the Player it is visible that, apparently, on 23 June 2023
the Player sent an email to *****@****. The Chamber took note that some of the text visible in this
screenshot of the Player’s outbox is “Dear Sir: Attached follows the communication of my decision to
suspend the contract with Club A until December, 31…”.
103. The Chamber then observed that the next page of the series of screenshots provided by Club B
included the email allegedly sent and noted that, in this screenshot, the text reads “Dear Sir: Attached
follows the communication of my decision to suspend the contract with Club A until December 31, (…)”,
i.e., the comma which appears after “December” in the outbox screenshot does not appear in the
screenshot of the email, but only after “31”, which raised the Chamber’s level of satisfaction as
regards the Player’s and Club B’s failure to meet their burden of proof insofar as the e-mail of 23
June 2023 is concerned.
104. On top of that, the Chamber noted that the Player claimed having sent the email to ****@*****,
account from which he had allegedly received communications from Club A. However, after a
thorough analysis of the evidence provided by the parties, the Chamber observed that in neither of
the communications sent from Club A to the Player appears such email account as the sender. Also,
this account does not appear in the Contract nor on the Club A’s contact details in TMS. Once again,
the Chamber would have expected a more exhaustive explanation as to why the Player sent such
an important document to a single e-mail address, apparently not belonging to any senior official of
Club A, not listed in the contract or in TMS as an official email address. If the Player wanted to be
absolutely sure that Club A had received his suspension notification –given the far-reaching
consequences it had– the Player should have certainly been more diligent, for instance, by sending
the e-mail/letter by registered mail.
105. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Chamber concluded that the evidence submitted by the
Player and Club B, namely, screenshots of the email, is not only limited, but also inconsistent.
106. In other words, from the screenshots provided, the Chamber considered that it could not be
established if the email was effectively received by Club A.
107. The Chamber wished to lastly point out that, on 14 July 2023, Mr ***** sent a letter to Club A where
although he mentioned “as previously communicated”, he also informed the latter that the Player was
“interested in the suspension of the contract”, rather than informing that it was already suspended on
the mentioned date. Had the e-mail of 23 June 2023 already been available at that point in time, it
is rationally expected that it should have been mentioned in the email of 14 July 2023. The Chamber
considered this as another element that titled the balance in favour of Club A, particularly
considering that, according to art. 2 par. 2 of Annexe 7 of the Regulations, the validity of the
suspension is not subject to the club’s consent, but rather to the written communication of the
Player before 1 July 2023 which, based on the said latter, could not be sufficiently established.
Page 20
108. On account of all the foregoing considerations, and referring to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules,
the Chamber concluded that the Player did not prove to have validly suspended the Contract in
writing by 1 July 2023, in accordance with Annex 7 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
II.
Which party terminated the Contract?
109. The Chamber acknowledged that, the above having been established, its next task was to assess
which of the parties terminated the Contract.
110. In this respect, the Chamber noted that Club A argued having terminated the Contract with just
cause on 7 August 2023 after having put the Player in default, to no avail. The Chamber then
observed that, according to the Player, the termination of the Contract should have retroactive
effects to February 2022, when Club A allegedly exposed the Player’s life and his physical and
psychological integrity when calling him back in Country A just before the war started.
111. Bearing in mind the foregoing allegations, as well as the provisions of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural
Rules, the Chamber wished to remark that, in spite of the severity of the past and current situation
in Country B, until now the Player had never informed Club A about his intention to terminate the
Contract, nor that it was in breach of its contractual obligations, as argued by the latter.
112. In fact, the Chamber observed that, contrary to the Player’s allegations, the Player had made use of
his right to suspend the Contract to join Club D and Club E afterwards, without ever raising such an
argument. By the same token, the Chamber then recalled that, according to the Player’s own
submissions, on 23 June 2023 he informed Club A that the Contract would be suspended again, and
even on 4 August 2023 Mr Agent A asked Mr **** the amount against which the club would be
willing to transfer the Player to a third club.
113. On account of the above, the Chamber rejected the Player’s allegations as to the retroactive effects
of the termination of the employment relationship, and concluded that the Contract was unilaterally
terminated by Club A on 7 August 2023.
114. For the sake of completeness, the above led the Chamber to reject the counterclaim lodged by the
Player against Club A.
III. Did Club A have just cause to terminate the Contract?
115. Having established that the Contract was unilaterally terminated by Club A, the Chamber entered
into the assessment as to whether the Contract was terminated with or without just cause.
116. In this respect, the Chamber recalled its longstanding and well-established jurisprudence in
accordance with which only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the
termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective
criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship
Page 21
between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient
measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employees fulfilment of his
contractual duties, or vice versa, such measures must be taken before terminating the employment
contract. Accordingly, a premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima
ratio measure.
117. With the above jurisprudence in mind, the Chamber went to analyse the evidence provided by Club
A in this regard and observed that it sent two default notices to the Player, on 3 and 31 July 2023, by
way of which it requested him to fulfil his contractual obligations and to return to the club, giving
concrete instructions and a deadline to comply with. In the second default notice, Club A also
informed the Player about the consequences that his failure to return would entail, namely, the
termination of the Contract.
118. The Chamber then observed that, on his side, the Player failed to return to the club’s discipline, and
did not provide any valid reason that would have justified the unfulfillment of his contractual
obligations other than the alleged suspension of the Contract. The Chamber considered that the
Player’s position clearly entailed that, no matter which actions Club A would take, he was not
prepared to honour his contractual obligations.
119. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasise that, according to the well-established
jurisprudence of FIFA and the CAS, for a party to be allowed to validly terminate an employment
contract, it must have warned the other party in order for the latter to have had the chance, it
deemed the complaint to be legitimate, to comply with its obligations. In this regard, “With regard to
employment contract relationships in the world of football, according to the principle of contractual
stability, the unilateral termination of a contract must be considered as an absolute last resort, where,
given the particularities of the situation at stake, it could not be expected that one of the parties could
reasonably continue to be bound by the contractual relationship” (cf. CAS 2006/A/1180).
120. The Chamber concluded that the above is perfectly applicable in the case at hand, where Club A only
terminated the Contract after more lenient measures were undertaken by it, to no avail. In other
words, the Chamber considered that the termination was an ultima ratio measure, i.e., that Club A
terminated the Contract with just cause and, consequently, the Player and Club B shall be held liable
for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
121. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable to Club A by the Player 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, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised
Page 22
over the term of the contract) and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
122. 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.
123. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of clause 7.4 of the Contract, in accordance
with which:
“The compensation due in case of premature termination of the present Contract is the following:
7.4.1. If the Club is a party in breach of the Contract without just cause, the Club shall pay to the Player
compensation calculated under the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players binding at the
moment of this contract signing. Notwithstanding any other provisions contained in this Contract, Player
agrees to use his best reasonable, diligent and good faith efforts to mitigate the Club’s obligation to pay
compensation under this article of the Contract by seeking comparable employment. The amount of the
Club’s obligation to pay compensation shall be reduced by the amount of the Player’s remuneration from
such comparable employment.
7.4.2. If the Player is a party in breach of the Contract without just cause, the Player shall instantly fully
indemnify the Club, pursuant to the legal principle of restitutio in integrum (positive interest), but in any
event the damages amount shall not be less than 150,000,000 (one hundred fifty million) Euros. The
Parties have given careful consideration to the damages it would incur, thus the abovementioned amount
is considered by the Parties to be a genuine pre-estimate of such losses and do not constitute excessive,
extravagant or oppressive. Thus, the Parties agree and acknowledge that the damages amount stated
above is fair an reasonable and therefore the parties expressly waive any right to challenge the
enforceability of this provision of the Contract”.
124. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that it did not
fulfil the criteria of proportionality, in line with the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, and therefore could not be taken into account for establishing the amount of
compensation payable to the Club A by the Player. In particular, the Chamber noted that the amount
of EUR 150,000,000, compared with the salary of the Player, could by no means be considered
proportionate.
125. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Player to Club A 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.
Page 23
126. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the club, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract until its term.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 500,000 net (i.e., EUR 1,200,000
payable in 2023 divided by 12 months and multiplied by 5) is the residual value of the Contract and
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
127. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Player had signed an employment contract with
another club during the relevant period of time. According to the constant practice of the Chamber
as well as art. 17 par. 1 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
due by a player to his former club. In particular, the Chamber explained that its standard practice is
to calculate the average between the player’s remuneration with his former club and his
remuneration with the new club, for the exact same period of time comprised between the early
termination of the employment contract with the old club and the original expiry date of such
contract. In case substantial evidence thereof is provided by the club, the Chamber might
additionally grant the damaged club the non-amortised transfer fee paid for the player in breach
and/or the actual costs incurred by the damaged club in order to replace the leaving player.
128. Indeed, the Player found new employment with Club B. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR 304,255.32 net per month,
including the fixed salary and the sign-on fee agreed in the New Contract, which amounts in total to
EUR 1,521,276.60 net during the relevant period.
129. Thus, the Chamber concluded that between the date of early termination of the Player’s Contract
with his former club and its original expiry date, the average between his remuneration with the
former club and his current remuneration amounts to EUR 1,010,638.30 net.
130. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that, according to the copy of the transfer agreement concluded
for the Player provided by Club A, the latter paid a transfer fee of EUR 15,000,000 and subsequently
concluded with him an employment contract valid as from 28 February 2019 until 31 December
2023, i.e., for 58 months. As the Contract was prematurely terminated with just cause by the Club
on 7 August 2023, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,293,103.45 net corresponds to
the non-amortised part of the transfer fee. Thus, such amount shall be added to the average
remuneration of the Player in order to establish the total amount of compensation due by him to
Club A
131. By the same token, the Chamber also observed that, according to the copy of the intermediary
agreement concluded with LHF International Business FZE, Club A paid EUR 998,000 to the
intermediary after it succeed in the negotiation and conclusion of the Contract on behalf of Club A.
Following the same rationale as in the previous paragraph, the Chamber concluded that the amount
of EUR 86,034.49 net corresponds to the non-amortised part of the intermediary fee, which shall
also be added to the average remuneration of the Player for the determination of the total
compensation due.
Page 24
132. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the
case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Player must pay the amount of EUR 2,389,776.24 net to
Club A (i.e., average remuneration between the Contract and the New contract plus the nonamortised transfer and intermediary fees), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
133. Lastly, taking into consideration Club A’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber in
this regard, the latter decided to award Club A interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a.
as of 8 August 2024 until the date of effective payment.
134. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, Club
B shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount of
compensation. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that said article applies regardless of any
involvement of the new club in the player’s unjustified termination of the contract. As has been
established by the DRC and CAS on numerous occasions, art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations is of an
objective nature and does not require that the new club be considered as instigator of the player’s
breach. As long as a club can be identified as the “new club” of the player, joint liability can be
established (see, for instance, CAS 2014/A/3852).
135. Finally, the Chamber noted that Club A also claimed that the Player should be liable to reimburse
the amount of EUR 450,000 net paid to him as a sign-on fee, calculated pro rata for the period
between 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2023.
136. In support of its allegations, Club A referred to the award of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
in the case CAS 2022/A/9016, where the Panel established, inter alia, the following:
“163. Another example of potential abuse would be a foreign player or coach what has received a
contractually agreed sing-on fee, i.e., a lump sum payment per season, but subsequently invokes Annex 7
to suspend his employment contract without paying back the relevant pro rata part of the sign-on fee”.
137. According to Club A, if the Player does not reimburse this amount, it would constitute an unjust
enrichment and an abuse of Annexe 7 of the Regulations, and “Thus, the reason for the payment of
the sign-on fee in 2019 was that [the Player] will play for Club A for the next five years. However, such a
requirement subsequently ceased to exist since July 2022”.
138. On account of these allegations, the Chamber referred to Clause 1.1 of the Appendix nº 1 of the
Contract, and noted that it provided the following:
“1. The Club pays the Player a salary in the following gross amounts: 1.1. 1 863 354,00 (one million eight
hundred sixty three thousand three hundred fifty-four) Euros, which is equivalent of 1 500 000,00 (one
million five hundred thousand) Euros net, as signing in fee to be paid until March 31, 2019”.
139. After analysing the wording of the above provision, the Chamber observed that the sign-on fee
agreed between Club A and the Player was not subject to any condition, such as the Player staying
Page 25
in Club A for the whole Contract, but rather that it was agreed as a sum of money payable as an
incentive for the Player to join Club A and, consequently, the Chamber decided to reject Club A’s
claim for reimbursement of the sign-on fee.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
140. 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 decisions, 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.
141. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted the following:
• According to art. 24 par. 2 lit. a), against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant
amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
• According to art. 24 par. 2 lit. b), against players, the consequence of the failure to pay the
relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in official matches up until
the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to six
months on playing in official matches.
142. Therefore bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Player and Club B must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to Club A within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of Club A:
• A ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately
effective on Club B, in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4 and 7 of the Regulations.
• A restriction on playing in official matches up until the due amounts are paid and for the overall
maximum up to six months shall become immediately effective on the Player, in accordance
with art. 24 par. 2, 4 and 7 of the Regulations.
143. The Player and Club B shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by Club A in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
144. The Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban and/or restriction will be lifted immediately
and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 28 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
Page 26
145. 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.
146. Furthermore, 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.
147. Lastly, the Chamber 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 / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Player A, must pay to Club A the following amount:
EUR 2,389,776.24 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 8 August 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of Club A are rejected.
4.
The Second Respondent, Club B, is jointly and severally liable for payment of the aforementioned
compensation.
5.
The counterclaim of Player A is rejected.
Page 27
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment (including
all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following
consequences shall apply:
1. Player A shall be imposed with a restriction on playing in official matches up until the due
amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to six months
on playing in official matches.
2. Club B shall be banned from registering new players, either nationally or internationally, up until
the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be up to three and consecutive
registration periods.
3. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the
event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of the three
entire and consecutive registration periods.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of Club A in accordance with art. 24 par.
7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 28
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20
P.O. Box
8044 Zurich
Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 29