Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 August 2016,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Todd Durbin (United States of America), member
Zola Majavu (South Africa), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player A, country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, country D
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 13 August 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter; the Claimant
or the player) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter; the Respondent
or the club) (hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties) entered into an
employment contract valid as of the date of its signature until 31 May 2015.
2.
According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the
Respondent the total amount of EUR 1,300,000 broken down as follows:
a. EUR 65,000 “equivalent to 317,200” as monthly salary payable at the end
of every month;
b. EUR 650,000 “equivalent to 3,172,000” as sign-on fee payable in two
equal instalments of EUR 325,000 “equivalent to 1,586,000” on 15
September 2014 and 15 January 2015.
3.
Moreover, clause 13.6 of the contract stipulated that the Claimant was entitled
inter alia to the following bonuses:
a. USD 1,000 corresponding to 3,670 for each goal scored;
b. USD 500 corresponding to 1,835 for “goal assistants”;
c. USD 30,000 corresponding to 110,100 if the club “reach position 12th / 7th
in the League”.
4.
Equally, clause 2.d provided that the Claimant was entitled to “…two way airway
ticket Business class for him and for his wife and three from his children to
country B”. Likewise, clause 2.e stated that the club was obliged to provide the
player with a new car.
5.
For its part, clause 13.2 stipulated inter alia that: “i) if the player is absent from
training without an acceptable reason, the amount of 17% of his monthly salary
will be deducted for each day of absence…”.
6.
In addition, clauses 2.g and 13.5 of the contract read respectively:
a. “[The Respondent] may terminate the contract at any time. [The
Respondent] is committed in this case to pay [the Claimant] all and any
amounts left to be paid on the contract until 31/05/2015”.
b. “If the player want to terminate the contract before the end of the
contract, he shall be required to pay the rest of the contract until
31/05/2015”.
7.
On 17 August 2014, the parties concluded an appendix to the contract, which in
its article 2 provides the following: “In addition to the value of the original
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 2 of 15
contract, [the Respondent] is obligated to pay the amount of EUR 300,000 to [the
Claimant] on 15 March 2015”.
8.
Moreover, article 3 of the appendix stipulated that: “The parties agreed to extend
the duration of the contract for an extra season 2015/2016 with salary of EUR
1,500,000” payable as follows:
a. EUR 65,000 “equivalent to 323,700” as monthly salary to be paid at the
end of every month;
b. EUR 850,000 in two instalments of EUR 450,000 on 30 August 2015 and of
EUR 400,000 on 1 January 2016.
9.
Additionally, article 4.3 of the appendix reads as follows: “[the Respondent] may
terminate this contract appendix at any time. [The Respondent] is committed in
this case to pay to [the Claimant] all and any amounts left to be paid on the
contract until 31/05/2016”.
10.
On 24 September 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in
front of FIFA for breach of contract requesting the total amount of “EUR
3,409,533.03” broken down as follows:
a.
1,268,800 (4x 317,200, cf. point 2.a above) equivalent to “EUR
309,985.32” as outstanding salaries of February, March, April and May
2015;
b. 586,000 equivalent to “EUR 145,397.25” as part of the payment due on
15 September 2014 (cf. point 2.b above);
c. 1,586,000 equivalent to “EUR 393,203.60” as per the payment due on 15
January 2015 (cf. point 2.b above);
d. EUR 300,000 as per the payment due on 15 March 2015 in accordance
with the appendix (cf. point 7 above);
e. “EUR 158,203.76” as outstanding salaries of August and September 2015
in accordance with the appendix (cf. point 8.a above);
f. EUR 450,000 as per the payment due on 30 August 2015 in accordance
with the appendix (cf. point 8.b above);
g. 3,670 equivalent to “EUR 909.87” for a goal scored on 20 September
2014 (cf. point 3.a above);
h. 3,670 equivalent to “EUR 909.87” for two assists made on 20 September
2014 (cf. point 3.b above);
i. 110,100 equivalent to “EUR 27,299.71” as the club finished in 9th place of
the league (cf. point 3.c above);
j. 24,000 equivalent to “EUR 5,951.27” as costs for renting a car;
k. EUR 5,975.39 as reimbursement of two flight tickets;
l. EUR 1,032,115.29 as compensation for breach of contract in accordance
with “the provisions of the contract and the appendix” and subsidiarly,
EUR 1,100,000 in accordance with art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations;
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 3 of 15
m. EUR 500,000 as “disciplinary sanction”;
n. Sporting sanctions on the club;
o. Legal costs;
p. 5% interest on the outstanding amounts as of the due dates.
11.
In particular, the Claimant explained that he was deregistered and sent to train
with the U-21 team of the Respondent since February 2015 without any valid
reason. Therefore, he was not allowed to participate in official matches with the
club.
12.
Moreover, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to pay his salaries of
February, March, April and May 2015. In this respect, the Claimant, via his legal
representatives, put the Respondent in default of payment on 24 March, 31
March, 16 April, 3 June, 9 July and 14 July 2015. However, the Respondent only
replied on 2 June and 30 July 2015 in both letters requesting to be provided with
a valid power of attorney. Moreover, via his letter of 31 March 2015, the Claimant
also requested to be reregistered and to be reinstated with the first team.
13.
In continuation, the Claimant argued that, while enclosing an authorization dated
20 May 2015 signed by the club’s coach, the latter granted him permission to be
absent from the club on holidays as of 20 May until 5 July 2015. The Claimant
argued that upon his return, he was given a letter from the club whereby it
informed him that he was not allowed to train neither with the first team nor
with the U-21 team.
14.
Consequently, the Claimant held that he had just cause to terminate the contract
and that the club must be held liable for the consequences thereof.
15.
As to the compensation for breach of contract claimed, the Claimant argued that
the objective of clause 2.g of the contract and 4.3 of the appendix was to cover
the damages caused to him in case the club would unilaterally terminate the
contract. Therefore, the Claimant argued that said clauses should serve as basis in
order to determine the payable compensation.
16.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent held that, “in spite of the high
expectations”, the player performed “very poorly” scoring one goal in 14 matches
only. In this respect, the Respondent stressed that, in view of the above, it decided
to exclude the Claimant “from the list of foreign players eligible to play in the
league” as of January 2015. Nevertheless, the Respondent asserted that the
player’s deregistration did not affect in any way his right to receive his salary and
all other benefits provided in the employment contract. Therefore, no breach of
the contract occurred following said deregistration.
17.
The Respondent further explained that in March 2015, the player’s agent
contacted the Respondent claiming EUR 300,000 as per art. 2 of the appendix. In
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 4 of 15
this respect, the Respondent argued that the appendix was “totally unknown to
the chairman and the entire Board of Directors”. The Respondent asserted that its
former CEO had “maliciously kept undisclosed” said appendix form the club’s
Board of Directors which was also not registered with the Football Association of
country D.
18.
In this context, the Respondent stressed that it was very unusual that only 4 days
after the conclusion of the employment contract, the parties would have
concluded a document extending both, the duration of the employment
relationship and the remuneration due to the player even for the first season.
19.
As a consequence to the above, the Respondent argued, while enclosing
documentation in this regard, that it filed a criminal complaint against its former
CEO, the player’s agent and the player for fraud.
20.
Moreover, the Respondent explained that it also suspended the payments due to
the Claimant “suspecting he was a party of the conspiracy too”.
21.
In view of the above, the Respondent maintained that the appendix is not a valid
contract and therefore, it is not obliged to pay any amount to the Claimant for
the 2015/2016 season. In addition, the Respondent argued that all the sums due
for the 2014/2015 season “are in the process to be paid”.
22.
In continuation, the Respondent stressed that, in view of clause 13.2 of the
contract, it imposed on the Claimant some fines due to his absence from several
training sessions, namely, on 16 March 2015, 29 March 2015, 6 April 2015, 22 April
2015, 29 April 2015, 5 May 2015 and 11 May 2015. In this respect, the Respondent
argued that the club’s coach absence authorization presented by the Claimant
was forged. In order to support its position, the Respondent enclosed some
documents with the club’s letterhead signed by its CEO and dated as mentioned,
putting forward that the player had been absent from training with the U-21
team on the relevant dates. As a consequence, the Respondent asserted that the
“relevant sums” have to be paid by the Claimant or must be offset with any sum
that should be found due by the club to the player.
23.
In his replica, the Claimant argued that he was never notified of the alleged
criminal complaint lodged by the Respondent against him. What is more, the
Claimant stressed, while enclosing certain documentation, that said complaint had
already been archived.
24.
Furthermore, the Claimant emphasized that the Respondent recognized his
deregistration, as well as not having paid to him his salaries of February, March,
April and May 2015 as per the contract.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 5 of 15
25.
As to the validity of the appendix, the Claimant stressed that the Respondent
never questioned its existence. In this regard, the Claimant argued that the
appendix was signed by the club’s CEO at that moment, who was perfectly
legitimized to sign it. In any case, the Claimant claimed that any potential fraud
committed by the club’s former CEO cannot be held against him. In this respect,
the Claimant alleged that the non-registration of the appendix with the Football
Association of country D cannot constitute a reason for its invalidity.
26.
In order to support his position, the player asserted that the Respondent acquired
an insurance policy for him valid for two seasons and that he trained with the
club as of 7 until 16 July 2015, i.e. during the season 2015/2016.
27.
As a consequence, the Claimant argued that the Respondent was perfectly aware
of the existence of the appendix.
28.
Finally, the Claimant explained that he never missed a training with the
Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant argued that the alleged fines imposed
on him were never notified to him and that, on the dates when he allegedly
missed trainings, there were no training sessions held at all. In this regard, the
player exposed that the day after a match, all the club’s players had a free day
and that all the dates mentioned by the club correspond precisely to days after a
match.
29.
As a consequence, the Claimant reaffirmed his claim in the following terms:
a. EUR 309,985.32 as outstanding salaries as of February until May 2015;
b. EUR 1,487,850.72 as “other unpaid amounts of the contract and the
appendix”;
c. EUR 920,000 as compensation for breach of contract;
d. EUR 500,000 as disciplinary sanction.
30.
In its rejoinder, the Respondent clarified that the criminal complaint against its
former CEO, the player’s agent and the player was settled on 17 December 2015
by means of an agreement signed with said CEO.
31.
In this respect, the Respondent enclosed a settlement agreement whereby its
former CEO recognizes, inter alia, the following:
a. The appendix was signed neither with the authorization of the President
of the club nor its Board of Directors;
b. The appendix was not registered with the Football Association of country
D.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 6 of 15
32.
As a consequence, the Respondent stressed that “No validity can be
acknowledged to the appendix (…) related to the season 2015/2016 and the club
cannot be sanctioned just because one of its officer committed fraud”.
33.
In view of the above, the Respondent requested for the Claimant’s claim to be
rejected.
34.
After having been requested by FIFA, the Claimant informed that he did not
conclude a new employment contract for the season 2015/2016.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the DRC or
the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at
stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 24 September 2015. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21
of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2016), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a player from country B and a club from country
D.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the
matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2016), and considering that the player’s claim was lodged on 24 September 2015,
the 2015 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter; the Regulations)
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started
by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation
contained in the 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.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 7 of 15
5.
First, the Chamber acknowledged that on 13 August 2014, the parties entered
into a contract valid until 31 May 2015 and that on 17 August 2014, they
concluded an appendix whereby the parties modified the financial aspects of the
contract and extended their labour relationship “for an extra season 2015/2016”.
6.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber took note of the claim of the
Claimant who argues that the Respondent breached the contract without just
cause as it deregistered him since February 2015 from the team and failed to pay
him part of the amount due on 15 September 2014, the entire amount due on 15
January 2015 as well as his salaries of February, March, April, May, August and
September 2015.
7.
The Chamber further took particular note of the fact that on 24 March, 31 March,
16 April, 3 June, 9 July and 14 July 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in
default of the outstanding amounts and, via his letter of 31 March, asked for his
reregistration.
8.
The Chamber continued by acknowledging the position of the Respondent, which
mainly argued that the appendix should not be considered as valid since it was
fraudulently signed by the player, the player’s agent and its former CEO. In this
regard, the Chamber observed that, according to the Respondent, said appendix
was neither disclosed to the club’s Board of Directors nor registered with the
Football Association of country D.
9.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not dispute owing the
salaries requested by the Claimant, however it argued that it suspended their
payment “suspecting [the Claimant] was a party of the conspiracy too”. Equally,
the Chamber noted that the Respondent recognized having deregistered the
player as of January 2015.
10.
Finally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent alleged having imposed
certain fines on the Claimant for having missed some training sessions, fines
which, according to the Respondent, must either be paid by the Claimant or offset
against any remuneration granted to the latter.
11.
With the above in mind, the DRC noted that none of the parties expressly
terminated the employment relationship; however, the members of Chamber
were of the unanimous opinion that, taking into consideration the allegations of
the Claimant as well as the nature of the amounts requested by him, the Claimant
considered having terminated the labour relationship between the parties by
lodging a claim on 24 September 2015 in front of FIFA against the Respondent for
breach of contract. In view of the above, the Chamber held that 24 September
2015 must be considered as the date of termination of the contractual
relationship between the parties.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 8 of 15
12.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber deemed that the first issue
which it needed to address was whether the relevant employment contract had
been terminated by the Claimant with just cause and, in the affirmative, which
would be the potential consequences of said termination. Thereafter, the
Chamber considered that it would have to address the issue of the fines imposed
by the Respondent on the Claimant.
13.
Having said that, the Chamber first wished to point out that the labour
relationship between the parties was governed by two different agreements, i.e.
the employment contract and the appendix. In this respect, the Chamber recalled
that the Respondent is disputing the validity of the appendix, which provided for
some extra payments due to the Claimant as well as an extension of the labour
relationship for the season 2015/2016. Therefore, considering that the
termination of the contract occurred on 24 September 2015, the members of the
Chamber were of the opinion that they first needed to establish the validity of
the appendix as, in case the latter was found to be invalid, it would entail that the
contractual relationship between the parties had ended after the 2014/2015
season.
14.
Along those lines, the Chamber focused on the position of the Respondent and, in
this respect, it was of the unanimous opinion that it does not stand. Indeed, the
Chamber emphasised that it is undisputed that the appendix was signed on behalf
of the club, by its then CEO. In this respect, the Chamber could not think of a
more legitimized person to sign said appendix on behalf of the club. Moreover,
and whilst referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber
concurred that the Respondent failed to present any evidence which would
demonstrate that the player was aware of the situation outlined by the
Respondent, let alone that he was part of the “conspiracy” reportedly
orchestrated by the club’s former CEO. Consequently, the DRC decided that, even
if it would be determined that the Respondent’s former CEO somehow breached
his fiduciary duties towards the Respondent, this act cannot be held against the
Claimant.
15.
Furthermore, the DRC recalled its well-established jurisprudence which dictates
that the validity of an employment contract cannot be made conditional upon the
execution of (administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited to, the alleged
non-disclosure of the appendix to the club’s Board of Directors or its registration
with the Football Association of country D.
16.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber unanimously
decided that there is not a single reason for which the appendix should be
considered invalid and therefore concluded that said document is legally binding
on the parties. Consequently, the DRC established that the parties were bound by
an employment contract until the end of the season 2015/2016 as provided for in
the appendix.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 9 of 15
17.
Having established the above, the members of the Chamber proceeded to analyse
the termination of the contract by the Claimant.
18.
First, the Chamber referred to the Claimant’s deregistration, which occurred, at
the latest, in February 2015 and which lasted until the date of the termination of
the contract. Along these lines, the members of the Chamber emphasised, as has
been previously sustained by the DRC in previous decisions, that among a player’s
fundamental rights under an employment contract is not only his right to a timely
payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training and to be given
the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official
matches. In this context, the DRC underlined that by refusing to register a player,
a club is effectively barring, in an absolute manner, his potential access to
competition and, as such, violating one of his fundamental rights as a football
player.
19.
Therefore, the Chamber established that the deregistration of a player
constitutes, in principle, a material breach of the contract since it de facto
prevents a player from being eligible to play for his club.
20.
Equally, the Chamber highlighted that it is undisputed that, by the time of the
termination of the contract, the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant
part of the amount due on 15 September 2014, the entire amount due on 15
January 2015 as well as his salaries of February, March, April, May and August
2015 without any argument other than it suspended their payment due to the
suspicion that the Claimant “was a party of the conspiracy too”, argument which
cannot possibly constitute a valid reason in order not to pay the Claimant his
outstanding remuneration. Even more considering that, as has been previously
established, the Respondent completely failed to meet its burden of proof in this
respect.
21.
In light of all the above considerations, the Chamber came to the unanimous
conclusion that the Claimant had just cause to terminate the contractual
relationship binding it to the Respondent on 24 September 2015 and that,
consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for said early termination of the
contract with just cause.
22.
Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with
the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just
cause by the Claimant.
23.
Before entering into the analysis of the amounts to be granted to the Claimant,
the Chamber wished to stress that the contract and the appendix provided for the
salaries of the Claimant in EUR and every amount to be granted to the player shall
therefore be given in said currency.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 10 of 15
24.
Having said that, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent
must fulfill its obligations as per the contract and the appendix in accordance with
the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. Consequently, the Chamber
decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the remuneration
that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. EUR 1,526,056.29
comprised of EUR 120,081 as part of the payment due on 15 September 2014 as
per the contract, EUR 325,000 corresponding to the payment due on 15 January
2015 as per the contract, EUR 300,000 corresponding to the payment due on 15
March 2015 as per the appendix, EUR 450,000 corresponding to the payment due
on 30 August 2015 as per the appendix as well as EUR 325,000 corresponding to
the player’s salaries of February, March, April, May, June and August 2015.
25.
Moreover, concerning the claimed amounts of outstanding flight expenses, the
Chamber acknowledged that the non-payment of these costs had not been
contested by the Respondent, that the contract contains a clear provision in this
regard and that the Claimant presented the relevant invoices demonstrating said
expenses. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to
receive flight expenses in the total amount of EUR 5,975.39.
26.
In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim and its constant practice,
the DRC decided to award interest on all the outstanding amounts at the rate of
5% p.a. as of the respective due dates.
27.
Furthermore, and in relation to the amounts claimed by the Claimant as bonuses
(cf. points I./2.g.h.i. above), the DRC concluded that the Claimant had not fully
substantiated his claim with pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with
art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. That is, there is no supporting
documentation relating to the Claimant’s claim pertaining to outstanding
bonuses. Consequently, the DRC decided to reject this part of the Claimant’s
claim. Equally, regarding the claim of the Claimant for costs for renting a car, in
the absence of any monetary value in the contractual condition relating to rental
car expenses, the Chamber had to reject this part of the Claimant’s claim.
28.
Having concluded the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the request of
the Respondent in relation to the alleged fines imposed on the Claimant. In this
regard, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent argues that the Claimant
should be condemned to pay said fines or that they should be offset against any
remuneration granted to the Claimant.
29.
In this context, the Chamber noted that the fines imposed on the Appellant are
based on clause 13.2 of the contract, which stipulates that “i) if the player is
absent from training without an acceptable reason, the amount of 17% of his
monthly salary will be deducted for each day of absence…”. Moreover, the
Chamber took note of the documentation presented by the Respondent in
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 11 of 15
support of its petition which only provides that the player was allegedly absent
from trainings on certain dates and that therefore the relevant fines were
imposed on the latter.
30.
With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous
conclusion that the alleged fines were imposed in violation of the Appellant’s
right to be heard and therefore cannot be accepted. Indeed, the clause on which
the fines are based clearly provides that “if the player is absent from training
without an acceptable reason…” (emphasis added) a certain deduction of his
salary would be applied. Along these lines, in the Chamber’s view, from the
documentation on file it is evident that the Claimant was never duly informed of
the imposition of the relevant fines let alone granted the opportunity to explain
the reasons for his alleged absences.
31.
On account of the above, the DRC unanimously rejected the request of the
Respondent in this regard.
32.
In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par.
1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent
compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on
the basis of the relevant employment contract.
33.
In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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.
34.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by
means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable
by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. Upon careful
examination of the contract and the appendix concluded between the parties, the
members of the Chamber took note that clauses 2.g and 13.5 of the contract read
respectively “[The Respondent] may terminate the contract at any time. [The
Respondent] is committed in this case to pay [the Claimant] all and any amounts
left to be paid on the contract until 31/05/2015” and “If the player want to
terminate the contract before the end of the contract, he shall be required to pay
the rest of the contract until 31/05/2015”. Equally, the members of the Chamber
observed that clause 4.3 of the appendix provided that “[the Respondent] may
terminate this contract appendix at any time. [The Respondent] is committed in
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 12 of 15
this case to pay to the second party all and any amounts left to be paid on the
contract until 31/05/2016”.
35.
The members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that they could not take
such clauses into account in order to determine the payable compensation for
breach of contract. Indeed, the clauses provided in the contract only foresee the
payable compensation for the season 2014/2015, whereas the termination of the
contract occurred in the season 2015/2016. What is more, the clause in the
appendix establishes a scenario which did not occur as it was not the Respondent
but the Claimant who terminated the contract in the matter at hand.
36.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the prejudice
suffered by the Claimant in the present matter had to be assessed in application
of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this regard,
the DRC emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for
contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis
taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter, as well as
the Chamber’s specific knowledge of the world of football and its experience
gained throughout the years.
37.
With the aforementioned in mind, and in order to evaluate the compensation to
be paid by the Respondent, the members of the Chamber took into account the
remuneration due to the Claimant in accordance with the employment contract,
along with the professional situation of the player after the early termination of
the contract occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the
remaining value of the contract which was breached as from its early termination
by the Respondent until its regular expiry amounts to EUR 985,000, comprised of
the Claimant’s salaries as of September 2015 until May 2016 (EUR 65,000 x 9) as
well as the payment due on 1 January 2016 in the amount of EUR 400,000. The
Chamber concluded that this amount shall serve as the basis for the final
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
38.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant did not conclude a new
employment contract during the original period of validity of the contract which
was terminated prematurely with just cause.
39.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay
the amount of EUR 985,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of
contract, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified
amount.
40.
Furthermore, the Chamber rejected the claim of the player as “disciplinary
sanction” in the amount of EUR 500,000 as it lacks any contractual or regulatory
basis.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 13 of 15
41.
Likewise, as regards the claimed legal costs, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4
of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established
jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to
legal costs.
42.
Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by establishing that any further
claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as
from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the
amount of EUR 1,526,056.39 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective
payment as follows:
a. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 120,081 as from 16 September 2014;
b. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 325,000 as from 16 January 2015;
c. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 2,803.78 as from 17 January 2015;
d. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 65,000 as from 1 March 2015;
e. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 300,000 as from 16 March 2015;
f. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 65,000 as from 1 April 2015;
g. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 65,000 as from 1 May 2015;
h. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 65,000 as from 1 June 2015;
i. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 3,171.61 as from 3 July 2015;
j. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 450,000 as from 31 August 2015;
k. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 65,000 as from 1 September 2015.
3.
In the event that the amount plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with
the above-mentioned number 2. is not paid by the Respondent within the stated
time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of EUR 985,000.
5.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned number 4. is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit,
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 14 of 15
time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
6.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
7.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of
the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed
against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must
be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and
shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the
CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry
of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief
stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4
of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS Directives
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 15 of 15