Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 September 2018,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Jérôm e Perlem uter (France), member
Elv is Chetty (S eychelles ), member
S tefano S artori (Italy), member
Takuy a Yam azaki (Japan), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, Country B
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the player,
Play er C, Country D
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club E, Country B
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 29 December 2014, the player of Country D, Player C (hereinafter: the player or
Respondent / Counter-Claimant) and the club of Country B, Club A (hereinafter: Club
A or Claimant / Counter-Respondent) signed a contract valid as from 29 December
2014 until 31 December 2017 (hereinafter: the contract).
2.
According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive the following amounts:
3.
a sign-on fee of USD 10,000, due upon signature of the contract;
an instalment of USD 10,000, due on 1 August 2015;
an instalment of USD 15,000, due on 1 August 2016;
a monthly salary of USD 4,000, starting ‘in 31-01-2015 ending in 31-07-2015’
a monthly salary of USD 4,500, starting ‘in 31-08-2015 ending in 31-07-2016’;
a monthly salary of USD 5,000, starting ‘in 31-08-2016 ending in 31-12-2017’.
Furthermore, the player was entitled to the following bonus payments:
USD 200 ‘after winning game in the league’;
USD 5,000 ‘for winning the league’;
USD 5,000 ‘for winning the cup’.
In addition, the player was entitled to ‘good residence in the club hotel’, as well as
‘one ticket for him and his family and two children every season’.
4.
On 22 February 2017, Club A lodged a claim against the player in front of FIFA,
claiming compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 350,000 to be
paid by the player, plus ‘legal interest to be applied […] from the due date till full
and final payment’, specified as follows:
USD 30,000 as costs of ‘recruiting a new player (Player F from Country G)’;
USD 70,000 as ‘financial damage for the unilateral breach of the agreement by the
player without just cause’, consisting of the 14 remaining monthly salaries of USD
5,000 each, to be paid as per the contract in the period between November 2016
and December 2017;
USD 150,000 as ‘fee of any permanent transfer of the player “any” with other club
he sign’;
USD 100,000 as ‘overall damage suffered by the Respondent in terms of technical
damage to the club’s performance, as well as reputational damage which will
have substantial effect on its sponsorship effort […]’;
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 2 of 15
Furthermore, Club A requested to impose sporting sanctions on the player, as well as
that the player has to be held responsible for the payment of procedural costs and the
legal fees of Club A in the amount of CHF 5,000.
5.
As to the substance of the matter, Club A argues that on 15 September 2016, the
Football Association of Country D sent a letter to the Football Association of Country
B, requesting the player’s release for international games of the national team of
Country D. In this respect, Club A explains that on 4 October 2016, the national team
of Country D would play against Country H and on 7 October 2016 against Country J
and that, in line with the FIFA Regulations, it released the player and allowed him to
play in said games.
6.
In addition, Club A explains that after the aforementioned games, the player returned
to its club, however with ‘considerable delay’.
7.
What is more, on 24 October 2016, the Football Association of Country D again
requested the Football Association of Country B for the release of the player for
international games of the national team of Country D to be played between 8 and 12
November 2016, i.e. on 8 November 2016 against Country L and 12 November 2016
against Country M. Club A explains that again, it released the player in line with the
FIFA Regulations.
8.
However, according to Club A, the player never returned to its club in the period after
24 October 2016. In view of this absence, Club A explains that on 22 November 2016,
the Football Association of Country B sent a letter to the Football Association of
Country D, requesting the return of the player to its affiliated Club A, explaining that
the absence of the player caused damage to Club A. According to Club A, the Football
Association of Country D never replied to this letter.
9.
Furthermore, Club A explained that on 5 December 2016, the Football Association of
Country D submitted a new request to the Football Association of Country B for the
release of the player as from 15 December 2016, as the national team of Country D
would participate in the Tournament N 2017 in Country P, which tournament would
be played between 14 January 2017 and 5 February 2017.
10. According to Club A, on 8 December 2016, the Football Association of Country B
replied to the Football Association of Country D’s letter dated 5 December 2016,
indicating that the player never returned to its affiliated Club A in the period after 24
October 2016. Further, the Football Association of Country B referred to its letter
dated 22 November 2016, in which it requested the help of Football Association of
Country D to solve this issue.
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 3 of 15
11. Finally, Club A explains that the player never returned to its club, and that on 28
December 2016, it had no other option then to recruit another player, Player F from
the club of Country G, Club Q, for a loan fee of USD 30,000.
12. In conclusion, Club A deems that the player was in breach of his contractual
obligations and should be ordered to pay the club compensation for breach of
contract. Finally, Club A points out that the breach of contract was also facilitated by
the Football Association of Country D, as it did not send the player back to Club A, and
requests that such behaviour shall be subject to an investigation by FIFA’s Disciplinary
Committee, ‘should your esteemed panel does not consider itself with enough
jurisdiction to sanction the Football Association of Country D’.
13. In reply to Club A’s claim, the player explains that he deems that any request of Club A
against the Football Association of Country D cannot be part of the ongoing
proceedings, as the DRC is not competent for said requests. What is more, the player
explains that he deems that Club A only lodged a claim against him, in order to
construct a joint liability of the Football Association of Country D and the player, but
that Club A’s real problems were with the Football Association of Country D. As a
result, the player states that the entire claim has to be considered inadmissible.
14. As to the substance, the player argues that as from April 2016, Club A showed its bad
faith, by failing to pay his salaries for the months of April and May 2016. According to
the player, Club A promised him to pay these salaries at a later phase.
15. Further, the player explains that in January 2014, he was called up for the first time by
the national team of Country D and confirms that on 15 September, 24 October and 5
December 2016, he was again called up by the Football Association of Country D for
the national team of Country D. In this respect, the player explicitly denies Club A’s
allegations that ‘he left the club outside of the dates as requested in each invitation’
and states that ‘he denies any further absence’.
16. In addition, the player argues that Club A did not prove that the player was not
available to its club and states that only after Football Association of Country D’s
request on 5 December 2016, he left Club A, in order to fulfil his international duties
for the national team of Country D. Moreover, according to the player, the Football
Association of Country D would have never sent a letter to Club A, via the Football
Association of Country B, for his release, if he would not have been present at Club A.
17. What is more, the player argues that Club A was not happy with his invitations for the
national team of Country D, and that for this reason, it unilaterally terminated the
contract with the player and hired a new player in December 2016.
18. Moreover, the player concludes that an absence of only a couple of days does not
establish a just cause for Club A to unilaterally terminate the contract. According to
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 4 of 15
the player, Club A simply was no longer interested in his services, as it already
contracted another player on 28 December 2016 and therefore, terminated the
contract without just cause.
19. In view of the above, on 7 May 2018, the player lodged a counterclaim towards Club
A, requesting outstanding remuneration as well as compensation for breach of
contract, specified as follows:
Outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 14,900, broken down as follows:
USD 9,000 as two outstanding salaries for the months of April and May 2016, in the
amount of USD 4,500 each;
USD 5,000 as outstanding salary for the month of December 2016;
USD 900 as rental and transportation allowance, calculated ‘ex aequo et bono’;
Compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 110,600, broken down as
follows:
USD 60,000 as residual value of the contract for the year 2017, consisting of 12
monthly salaries of USD 5,000 each;
USD 3,600 as rental and housing allowances for the year 2017;
USD 2,000 as costs of ‘4 round trips from Country D to Country B’;
USD 7,500 as ‘moral damages’;
USD 30,000, based on the specificity of the sport as a factor for damages, specified
as ‘6 months of salary compensation’.
Furthermore, the player requested 5% interest p.a. on the abovementioned amounts
as from the relevant due dates, as well as sporting sanctions to be imposed on Club A.
Finally, the player requested that Club A has to bear his legal expenses.
20. In its reply to the player’s response and counterclaim, Club A argues that it only
referred to the behaviour of Football Association of Country D in its initial claim, in
order to give a complete overview of all the relevant circumstances, but insists that it
only has claims towards the player. Further, Club A explains that the matter at hand is
concentrated on the player’s (alleged) breach of his contractual obligations.
21. In addition, Club A denies all the player’s allegations, and submits an extract of a
WhatsApp-conversation, allegedly taking place between on 10 March and 21 June
2017, between the player and Club A’s president, Mr. R. In the WhatsApp conversation
of 27 March 2017, the player requests Mr. R to accept his apologies for what happened
and further writes the following: ‘I promise to come back and play if anything
happens that I run away then you punish me’. Furthermore, Mr. R writes to the player
the following: ‘Demies I give you more then you deserve you get all your money and
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 5 of 15
twice you ran away’, to which the player allegedly replied ‘Yes I know president it’s my
fault’.
22. Moreover, Club A submitted a payment receipt dated 21 July 2016 for the amount of
USD 15,000, duly signed by the player, in accordance with which the player confirmed
to have received an amount of USD 15,000 as ‘down payment of the third season’, as
well as that he ‘got all his right before the date of signing this receipt’.
23. In view of the abovementioned circumstances, Club A deems that it is clear that the
player ‘ran away’ and breached his contractual obligations. Further, Club A argues that
it never had a problem with the international duties of the player.
24. In conclusion, Club A requests the rejection of the player’s counterclaim, as well as for
the acceptance of its initial claim.
25. In his duplica, the player reiterates his previous argumentation and further contests
‘the authenticity of the online conversation’ submitted by Club A. In this respect, the
player argues that such information cannot be considered as valid evidence, as it is ‘a
transcript of an alleged conversation between 2 phone numbers, nothing less, nothing
more’.
26. Furthermore, the player states that he never received ‘any notification and/or
complaint concerning his international duties and/or absence from the club or
Federation’, and that he only became aware of Club A’s allegations when he was
informed by FIFA about the present dispute.
27. Finally, the player explicitly denies Club A’s allegations that by means of the payment
receipt dated 21 July 2016, the player received all his dues under the contract signed
between the parties. In this respect, the player confirms to have signed the payment
receipt dated 21 July 2016, but explains that the amount of USD 15,000 only refers to
sign-on fee for the third season, which was due on 1 August 2016.
28. In its comments to the entire case file, Club E (hereinafter: Club E or Intervening Party)
explained that on 12 September 2017, it contacted both the player and his manager,
Mr. S, and that it was informed that the player was ‘free and not bound to any
football club whatsoever’. Said information was, according to Club E, also confirmed
by the Football Association of Country B. In conclusion, Club E states that it had ’no
idea about the dispute between the player and Club A’.
29. Furthermore, Club E explains that it signed a contract with the player, valid between
12 September 2017 and 30 May 2018, on the basis of which the player would be
entitled to receive a monthly salary of USD 1,250, to be paid in 8 instalments ‘until 3005-2018’.
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 6 of 15
30. Finally, according to the information provided by the Football Association of Country
B, on 17 May 2018, the player had the intention to sign a new contract with the club
of Country B, Club T. Further, according to the information contained in the TMS, the
player and Club T apparently entered into an employment relationship, of which
however no further details are available, but terminated their contractual relation as
per 3 June 2018. Thereafter, on 26 July 2018, the player was transferred to the club of
Country U, Club W, where he signed a contract valid for the 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and
2020/2021 seasons.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber
or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this
respect, it took note that the claim of Club A was submitted to FIFA on 22 February
2017. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2017; hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination
with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2018) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the
matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a club of Country B and a player of Country D, with the
involvement of another club of Country B.
3.
However, the Chamber noted that the player is of the opinion that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber has no competence to deal with the entire claim at stake, as he
understands that Club A had also lodged a claim against the Football Association of
Country D, as a result of which the entire claim should be declared inadmissible
4.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber wished to point out that, after being
informed by the FIFA Administration that it would not be able to deal with its claim
against the Football Association of Country D, Club A had duly amended its claim and
withdrew its requests against the aforementioned federation
5.
Furthermore, it appeared to the members of the Chamber that the remaining parties
to the dispute were two clubs of Country B, as well as a player of Country D, and that
as such, the international dimension of the dispute was given.
6.
As a result of all the foregoing, all the player’s objections towards the competence of
FIFA to deal with the present matter had to be rejected, and the Dispute Resolution
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 7 of 15
Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art.
26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 February 2017, the
2016 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.
8.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
9.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber took into account that Club A and the
player concluded an employment contract, valid between 29 December 2014 and 31
December 2017. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that Club A brought forward that
the player, as from September 2016, was called up several times for the national
teams of Country D and also played in several matches of said national team.
10.
However, according to Club A, after the player had played in a match of the national
team of Country D on 12 November 2016 against Country M, he failed to return to
Club A by no later than 16 November 2016. Despite several requests from Club A,
sent via the Football Association of Country B and the Football Association of
Country D to the player, he never came back. In view of these circumstances, Club A
is of the opinion that the player had breached his contract without just cause and has
to be obliged to pay compensation to Club A.
11.
The player, for his part, submitted that as form April 2016, Club A was in bad faith
and failed to pay the player his salaries for the months of April, May and December
2016. What is more, the player argues that Club A was not happy with his invitations
for the national team of Country D and that for this reason, it had terminated his
contract without just cause and hired a new player, to replace him in Club A’s squad.
Finally, the player explicitly denies that he was absent from Club A outside the
release periods, in which he played for the national team of Country D. As a result,
the player lodged a counterclaim, claiming outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract from Club A.
12.
With the aforementioned considerations in mind, in particular, the opposite
positions of the parties, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this
dispute, was to determine on which date and by which party the employment
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 8 of 15
contract had been unilaterally terminated, and whether said termination was made
with or without just cause. Subsequently, the Chamber needed to determine the
consequences of said early termination of the contractual relationship, as well as to
establish which party is to be held responsible for said consequences.
13.
In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that from the documentation on
file, it appeared that the player, while being under contract with Club A, on 15
September 2016 was called up by the Football Association of Country D in order to
play for the national team of Country D in two international matches against
Country H and Country J. After returning to Club A, according to the latter with a
‘considerable delay’, on 24 October 2016, the player was again called up by the
Football Association of Country D, this time for the preparation and actual
participation in two international matches to be played against Country L on 8
November 2016 and Country M on 12 November 2016. The Chamber noted that from
the information on file, it appeared that the player was duly released by Club A on
24 October 2016, and, in line with article 1 par. 4 and of of Annexe 1 of the FIFA
Regulations, should have returned to Club A no later than 16 November 2016.
14.
What is more, it appeared to the members of the Chamber that Club A noted that
the player did not return to its club, and that already on 22 November 2016, it sent
via the Football Association of Country B a letter to the Football Association of
Country D, requesting a clarification for the absence of the player and explicitly
demanding the player to return to Club A, which letter has remained unanswered by
the Football Association of Country D. Further, the Chamber referred to the fact that
on 5 December 2016, the Football Association of Country D again requested the
Football Association of Country B to release the player, as it apparently was of the
understanding that the player had already returned to Club A, as well as to the
Football Association of Country B’s answer dated 8 December 2016. In said answer,
the Football Association of Country B explained to the Football Association of
Country D that the player was absent from his duties at Club A since 24 October
2016, the day on which he was released for participating in the international games
of the national team of Country D.
15.
As to the player’s argumentation, the members of the Chamber turned their
attention the player’s allegations that he was not absent in the period as from 24
October 2016, as mentioned by Club A, and that only on 15 December 2016, he left
Club A– in line with Football Association of Country D’s request to release him – to
participate with the national team of Country D in the Tournament N for the period
between 14 January and 5 February 2017. What is more, the player stated that his
monthly salaries for April and May 2016 had remained unpaid, and that at the end of
December 2016, he found out that Club A had hired a new player, in order to replace
him, as it allegedly was not happy with the player’s international duties for the
national team of Country D. For this reason, the player deems that Club A
unilaterally terminated the contract at the end of December 2016 without just cause.
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 9 of 15
16.
When analysing the respective arguments, the Chamber first of all wished to refer to
the contents of article art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a
party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden
of proof.
17.
In this respect, the Chamber turned its attention to the events allegedly occurred as
from 24 October 2016 and by doing so, noted that the player did not provide any
documentary evidence or corroborating documentation, proving that after his
release for international duties with the national team of Country D, he had duly
returned to Club Ain November 2016. What is more, from the information on file, it
appeared to the members of the Chamber that already on 22 November 2016, Club A
reported the absence of the player via the Football Association of Country B to the
Football Association of Country D, and that the player himself confirmed that at the
latest as from 5 December 2016, he was no longer present at Club A.
18.
Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Chamber had to conclude that the player,
after his release for the international games to be played with the national team of
Country D, had failed to return to Club A in November 2016.
19.
Furthermore, the Chamber turned to the player’s allegations that his salaries for
April, May and December 2016 remained unpaid and noted that there is a payment
receipt dated 15 July 2016 for an amount of USD 15,000 on file, duly signed by Club
A and the player, which also contains a sentence stipulating that the player received
all his entitlements, due before the date of signing the receipt.
20.
In this respect, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasize that a party signing
a document of legal importance, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility
and is consequently liable to bear the possible legal consequences arising from the
execution of such document.
21.
In respect of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber had to conclude that the
player had duly signed the payment receipt dated 15 July 2016, according to which
document on said date, no amounts remained outstanding. Therefore, the Chamber
had to conclude that on 16 November 2016, the date on which the player should
have returned to Club A, said club had fulfilled all its financial obligations towards
the player. Furthermore, as the player was already absent as from December 2016, he
could also not provide any convincing evidence that the club without valid reasons,
failed to pay him his monthly salary for December 2016, which was in fact not yet
due at the moment he left the club.
22.
In view of the above, the DRC concluded that, taking into account the
documentation presented by the parties to the dispute, Club A had duly released the
player for his international duties with the national team of Country D on several
occasions, however that after 16 November 2016, the player did not return to Club A
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 10 of 15
anymore, leaving his whereabouts unknown to Club A. Further, the members of the
Chamber noted that Club A had duly paid all the remuneration the player was
entitled to until 16 November 2016, the day he should have returned to Club A.
Consequently, the Chamber concurred that the player had seriously neglected his
contractual obligations, by failing to return to Club A after he was released for his
international duties with the national team of Country D.
23.
On account of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber considered that the player had terminated
the contract without just cause on 16 November 2016, by failing to return to Club A,
whereas there was no outstanding remuneration at that point in time and no other
justification for his definitive departure from the club. Therefore, the player is to be
held liable for the early termination of the contract without just cause.
24.
As a consequence to the aforementioned conclusion, the DRC established that, in
accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is liable to pay
compensation to Club A for breach of contract. Furthermore, in accordance with the
unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established
that the player’s new club, i.e. Club E, shall be jointly and severally liable for the
payment of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that
the joint liability of the player’s new club is independent from the question as to
whether the new club has committed an inducement to contractual breach or any
other kind of involvement by the new club. This conclusion is in line with the wellestablished jurisprudence of the Chamber that was repeatedly confirmed by the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
25.
Having stated the above, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the
members of 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 as well as the fees
and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the
contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period. The
DRC recalled that the list of objective criteria is not exhaustive and that the broad
scope of criteria indicated tends to ensure that a just and fair amount of
compensation is awarded to the prejudiced party.
26.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by
means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 11 of 15
compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract.
In this regard, the Chamber noted the contract did not contain any relevant clauses
in this respect.
27.
In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount
of compensation payable in the case at stake had to be assessed in application of 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. Therefore, other objective criteria
may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber stated 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.
28.
In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to Club A in the present case,
the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the financial terms of the
former contract and the new contract, the value of which constitutes an essential
criterion in the calculation of the amount of compensation in accordance with art. 17
par. 1 of the Regulations. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to
emphasise that the relevant compensation should be calculated based on the
average fixed remuneration, i.e. excluding any conditional or performance related
payment, agreed by the player with his former club and his new club, as well as
considering the period of time remaining on the contract signed between the player
and the former club.
29.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the
fixed remuneration payable to the player under the terms of both the employment
contract signed with Club A and the employment contract signed with Club E, for the
period of 13.5 months that was remaining since the unilateral termination of the
contract by the player until its expiry, i.e. from 16 November 2016 until 31 December
2017.
30.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that, as per the employment contract signed with
Club A, the player was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of USD 5,000 for
the remaining contractual period, i.e. a total fixed remuneration of USD 67,500.
31.
In continuation, the DRC equally took note of the player’s monthly remuneration
under the terms of his employment contract with his new club, i.e. Club E, signed on
12 September 2017, which corresponds to the total amount of USD 4,375 until 31
December 2017.
32.
Taking into account the above, the Chamber concluded that, for the relevant period,
the player’s average remuneration amounts to USD 35,937.50.
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 12 of 15
33.
In addition, the Chamber analysed Club A’s request for an amount of USD 30,000 as
costs of replacing the player with a new player, Player F. In this respect, the Chamber
deemed that it could not be established that these costs would either constitute an
objective element or be linked to specifity of sport, and moreover, it could not be
established from the information on file that Player F was the direct replacement of
the player, or just an additional player to Club A’s squad. In view of the foregoing,
the Chamber decided that these costs could not be accepted as objective criteria on
which the calculation of the amount of compensation could be based.
34.
Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the other request for compensation brought
forward by Club A, by means of which it claimed an additional, unspecified amount
of USD 150,000 as compensation for a future transfer of the player, and concluded
that it has to be rejected, since it cannot be considered as an objective element, as a
possible future transfer amount is considered to be speculative. Moreover, the
Chamber decided also to reject Club A’s request for an unspecified amount of USD
100,000 as ‘overall damage’, due to the lack of a legal basis and the lack of
documentary evidence provided by Club A that it would be entitled to such amount.
35.
Taking into account all the aforementioned objective elements in the matter at
hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the total amount of USD
35,937.50 was to be considered reasonable and justified as compensation for breach
of contract in the case at hand.
36.
As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the player has to pay the amount of
USD 35,937.50 as compensation for breach of contract to Club A, plus interest of 5%
p.a. as of 22 February 2017 until the date of effective payment, taking into account
the request of Club A and the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this regard.
37.
Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the
Regulations, Club E shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned amount of compensation.
38.
The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by deciding that Club
A’s claim is admissible and partially accepted, as it has been established that the
player did not have just cause to terminate the employment contract. Furthermore,
the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim of the player.
III.
Decision of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 13 of 15
3.
The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Player C, is rejected.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of the present
decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 35,937.50, plus
5% interest p.a. as from 22 February 2017 until the date of effective payment.
5.
The Intervening Party, Club E, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
amount mentioned under point 4.
6.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under point
4. is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
7.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
8.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance
under point 4. is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every
payment received.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 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
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 14 of 15
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Omar Ongaro
Football Regulatory Director
Encl.: CAS directives
Club A, Country B / Player C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 15 of 15