Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 November 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player B
BY:
Frans de Weger (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
A, Country A
RESPONDENT 1:
B, Country B
RESPONDENT 2:
C, Country C
Page 2
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 November 2020, the Country B player, B (hereinafter: “the player” or “the Respondent
1”), and the Country A club, A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) signed a document under the
title “Official offer” (hereinafter: “the offer” or “the contract”) by means of which the
Claimant offered the player the following conditions for the season 2020/2021, i.e.:
• 7 monthly salaries of EUR 20,000 net each;
• Furnished apartment, a car and full medical insurance and
• 4 flight tickets.
2.
According to TMS, the season 2020/2021 in Country A ran from 29 August 2020 until 29
May 2021.
3.
On 11 November 2020, the player sent a SMS message (hereinafter: “the termination
message”) to the Claimant stating, inter alia, as follows:, “It's was a big honor for me to
become a member of your club I'm beyond Grateful, I was really looking forward to be part
of your club but unfortunately things didn’t work the way it's was planned I got other offer
this afternoon my family and I decided to go with that one, thank you so much for the
opportunity I really appreciate it its was a pleasure to meeting everyone I'm flight back to my
country this morning thanks for everything have a great day B".
4.
On 11 November 2020, the Claimant replied to the player informing the latter, “it cannot
recover such termination of the contract as transfer window was closed by that time and that
it shall be forced to sportively compete with less foreign players comparing to its rivals in the
league”. Moreover, the Claimant requested the player to report back immediately to
complete his quarantine period and join the team´s activities. The Claimant further informed
the player that any third party that may conclude a contractual relationship with him would
be deemed as an inducing party to breach the contract without just cause and that it will be
jointly and severally liable.
5.
On 11 November 2020, the player send another SMS message to the Claimant insisting in his
decision to terminate the contract for a better offer.
6.
On 18 November 2020, the Claimant sent a last notice to the player requesting him to comply
with his contractual duties..
7.
On 20 January 2021, the player and the Country C club, C (hereinafter: “the Respondent 2”)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the new contract”) valid from 1 February
2021 until 31 December 2022.
8.
According to point 4 of the new contract, the player was entitled to receive from the
Respondent 2 the following remuneration: USD 300,000 as total annual salary for the period
Page 3
from 1 February 2021 until 31 December 2021 payable as follows: 1) USD 27,272 from
February to November 2021 monthly and 2) USD 27,280 in December 2021.
9.
On 21 January 2021, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent 2 informing that the player
unilaterally breached the contract with the Claimant without just cause, to no avail.
10. According to TMS, on 17 February 2021, the Country A Football Association (Country A FA)
issued an international transfer certificate (ITC) in favour of the Country C Football Association
(Country C FA) in connection to the transfer of the player who was formerly member of the
Country C club, D.
11. According to TMS, on 18 February 2021, the player was registered with the Respondent 2.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 25 May 2021, the Claimant filed a claim against both, the player and the Respondent 2
before FIFA (the “Claim”).
13. On 11 June 2021, FIFA sent a correspondence to the Respondent 2, to the email addresses
provided in TMS (i.e. XXX [President´s email] and YYY [TMS responsible]) , notifying the Claim.
Moreover, in the same correspondence, it was stated as follows:
“What is more, we have noted from the information contained in the Transfer Matching
System (TMS) that Mr B appears to be currently registered with your club. In this context, we
first ask you to kindly confirm whether the e-mail address(es) to which the present letter was
sent is/are in fact the one(s) via which we would be able to validly contact you in connection
with the captioned player. Should we not receive a reply in this respect, we will assume these
are the correct e-mail addresses. Furthermore, we kindly ask you to contact the player, Mr B,
and inform him that, within the scope of the investigation currently pending in front of our
decision-making bodies, he should provide our services with a valid e-mail address in order
for us to forward to him all correspondence in connection with such investigation. Please
note that such confirmation of the player’s contact details must be signed by the player
himself or alternatively by his legal representative, holding a valid power of attorney (…)
Finally, we would like to draw the player’s attention to the fact that, should we not receive
the requested information within the aforementioned time-limit, we will assume that the
player, Mr B, wishes to be notified via the club, C, in particular, via the e-mail address(es):
XXX and YYY, to which this letter was sent”.
14. A deadline of 6 days to reply to said letter was granted to the Respondent 2. The Respondent
2 did not reply to said letter.
Page 4
15. On 2 July 2021, the Claimant´s claim was sent to both Respondents’ email addresses
registered in TMS (cf. article 10.4 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal)
granting a deadline until 22 July 2021 to reply to said claim.
16. The FIFA General Secretariat did not receive any bounced back email or any other reply which
would lead to the conclusion that the Claim had not been properly notified. On the contrary,
it received the respective delivery confirmation reports. That notwithstanding, neither the
Respondent 1 nor the Respondent 2 replied to the Claim.
17. On 18 August 2021, FIFA sent a further correspondence to all parties informing that the
investigation phase on the present matter was closed. The Respondents did not react to such
correspondence.
18. On 22 November 2021, FIFA sent a new correspondence to the parties informing that the
present matter would be submitted to the Dispute Resolution Chamber on 25 November
2021. The Respondents also did not react to such correspondence.
19. A brief summary of the claim is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
20. The Claimant lodged the Claim for the alleged unilateral breach of contract without just cause
also arguing that the Respondent 2 induced the player to the aforementioned breach.
21. The Claimant argued, “Upon the signing of the Contract, the Claimant provided the player
with a flight ticket to Country A and arranged all visa preparations for his employment in
Country A. Within a few days upon the conclusion of the Contract, the Player arrived in
Country A and successfully passed medical examinations. In addition, the Claimant arranged
hotel accommodation to the Player as he immediately entered in to quarantine as per Country
A government covid-19 restrictions, before he could join the Claimant's trainings and
activities”.
22. The Claimant further argued, “While the Claimant was waiting for the Player to end his
quarantine, and whereas by this time it was no longer allowed to sign any other player until
the next transfer window, on 11 November 2020, the Claimant was very surprised to receive
the termination message”.
23. The Claimant stated having sent letters and messages to the player trying to overturn his
unilateral termination and get him back to the team; however to no avail.
24. The Claimant further stated that in January 2021, the player signed an employment contract
with the Respondent 2 and the latter officially announced it on its website.
Page 5
25. The Claimant stated that according to art. 18.5 of the RSTP if a player enters into two
employment contracts with different clubs for the same period of time, the provisions of
Chapter IV of the RSTP related to maintenance of contractual stability will apply.
26. The Claimant further stated that taking into account that the player concluded almost
simultaneously two-employment contracts, he breached the contract during the protected
period and thus is liable to pay compensation to the Claimant (cf. art. 17.1 of the RSTP).
27. In addition, the Claimant argued that the Respondent 2 is jointly and several liable (cf. art.
17.2 of the RSTP).
28. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that according to art. 17.4 of the RSTP it shall be presumed
unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a player who has terminated his
contract without just cause has induced the professional to commit a breach. In this regard,
the Claimant underlined having specifically warned the Respondent 2 about the
aforementioned but the latter did not reply.
29. The Claimant stated that the contract does not contain a specific clause related to
compensation for breach of contract, consequently, art. 17 RSTP should apply, i.e. average
between the contract´s value and the new contract´s value for the same period.
30. The Claimant argued not being able to calculate the damage compensation since it was not
in possession of the employment contract concluded between both Respondents.
31. Moreover, the Claimant stated that since the termination of the contract by the player
occurred when the transfer window was closed, the Claimant could not hire a substitute
player to mitigate its damages. In addition, the Claimant stated that it was not able to place
an alternative foreign player since under the national league rules, only 5 foreign player
allowed in the pitch at any given moment (6 total in the squad).
32. Furthermore, the Claimant reiterated that since the breach of the contract occurred during
the protected period, the player has to be sanctioned in accordance with art. 17 par.3 of the
RSTP.
33. The Claimant in its prayers for relief requested:
1) FIFA DRC shall order the Respondents to reveal the employment contract they mutually
signed and submitted to the TMS.
2) FIFA DRC shall order the Respondents, jointly and severely, to pay to Claimant
compensation for termination of the Contract without just cause as per calculation to be
determined by the average between the value of the Contract to the value of the new
employment contract signed between the respondents [(EUR 140,000 + X)/2], plus 5%
interest per month on said compensation as from the date of the termination of the
contract, until the date of effective payment.
Page 6
3) FIFA DRC is requested to impose on the Respondent 1 a ban from four months on his
eligibility to participate in official matches.
4) FIFA DRC is requested to impose on the Respondent 2 a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally for one or two entire and consecutive
registration periods.
5) FIFA DRC is requested to order the Respondents, jointly and severely, to help the Claimant
to pay his legal fees in the amount of CHF 17,750 which were all incurred in relation to
the behaviour of the Respondents in this matter.
b. Position of the Respondents
33. As previously mentioned, both Respondents failed to reply to the Claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
34. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as “the Chamber” or
“the DRC”) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 25 May 2021. Taking into
account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing
the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”), the aforementioned edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
35. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the DRC is competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Country A club, a Country B player and a Country C club.
36. Furthermore, 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 (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the Claim was lodged on 25 May 2021, the February 2021 edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
37. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged
fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed the wording
Page 7
of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed
by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer
Matching System (TMS).
c. Preliminary procedural issue
38. The above notwithstanding, before formally entering into the substance of the matter, the
DRC wished to address the issue of the lack of reply to the Claim by both Respondents.
Indeed, as it is widely accepted, the right to be heard of parties entails that they must be
given the opportunity to present their case and be able to reply to any claim or argument
raised against them. Such fundamental principle is enshrined in art. 12.1 of the Procedural
Rules.
39. In that context, the DRC recalled that, according to art. 10.1 of the Procedural Rules,
communications in proceedings before FIFA’s decision-making bodies may be undertaken via
email. Along these lines, art. 10.4 of the Procedural Rules further provides that
communications from FIFA via email shall be sent to a party by using the email address
provided by the party, or that in TMS.
40. It is undisputed that the FIFA General Secretariat notified the Claim to both Respondents via
the email addresses of the Respondent 2 contained in TMS. In particular, the DRC highlighted
that the FIFA General Secretariat sent the relevant correspondence via email to the email
addresses of the Respondent 2 registered in TMS, i.e. XXX (President´s email) and YYY (TMS
manager).
41. In addition, as explained above, the Respondent 2 was given a clear and explicit instruction
to inform the Respondent 1, with whom it has an existing contractual relationship, to inform
him about the Claim. The DRC emphasised that the Respondent 2 was obliged to do so
pursuant to art. 12.2 of the Procedural Rules.
42. The DRC also emphasised that the FIFA General Secretariat received the relevant delivery´s
confirmations of the emails sent on 11 June 2021 and 2 July 2021 respectively.
43. For the sake completeness, the Chamber remarked that two additional communications were
sent to both Respondents to the aforementioned email addresses, the first one on 18 August
2022 informing the parties about the closure of the investigation phase and the second one
on 22 November 2022 informing the parties about the submission of the present claim to the
DRC. The Chamber stated that the Respondents did not react to those emails as well.
44. Consequently, the DRC was satisfied that both Respondents were properly served with the
Claim pursuant to the Procedural Rules and that thus their right to be heard has been fully
respected.
Page 8
d. Merits of the dispute
45. The Chamber then entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it
considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
46. First, the DRC recalled that the Respondents failed to reply to the Claim. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that, in this way, both Respondents had renounced to their right of
defence and, thus, they had not formally contested the allegations of the Claimant.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
47. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that on 4 November 2020 the Claimant and the Respondent 1
concluded the offer.
48. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant held that the offer was a valid
and binding employment contract.
49. In this context, the DRC reiterated that the Respondent 1 did not reply to the claim.
50. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber started by recalling its well-established jurisprudence
which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and
binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain
the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and
their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the
employer to the employee.
51. In casu, after a thorough analysis of the offer, the Chamber acknowledged that said
document concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent 1 contained the name and
signature of both parties, the duration of the employment relationship (the season
2020/2021) and the remuneration payable to the player (i.e. i) 7 monthly salaries of EUR
20,000 net each; ii) furnished apartment, a car and full medical insurance and iii) 4 flight
tickets).
52. What is more, the Chamber took note that the Respondent 1 in its termination message
stated, inter alia, “…It was a big honour for me to become a member of your club…”, which
strongly suggests that the Respondent 1 considered himself being bound by a contract to the
Claimant.
53. Thus, the Chamber held that based on the terms agreed by the parties in the offer in
combination with the player´s above clear acknowledgment, it shall be concluded that the
Page 9
offer constituted a valid and binding contract valid until 29 May 2021 (i.e. end of the season
2020/2021 in Country A) and that the offer shall be considered in the case at stake, as the
contractual basis of the present dispute.
54. At this stage, the DRC recalled that the Claimant lodged the present claim before FIFA
requesting, inter alia, compensation against Respondent 1 for alleged unilateral breach of
contract without just cause and against the Respondent 2 for inducing the player to the
aforementioned breach.
55. Subsequently, the Chamber pointed out that it remained uncontested that after the
conclusion of the contract the player travelled to Country A and successfully passed the
medical examinations.
56. In particular, the DRC highlighted that seven days after having signed the contract (i.e. on 11
November 2020) the Respondent 1 sent the termination message to the Claimant informing
that he received another offer from another club and that he decided to accept it.
57. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Claimant immediately reacted to the
termination message requesting the player to reassume duties with them, however, the player
reiterated his decision to terminate the employment relationship.
58. In this context, the Chamber recalled the content of art. 13 of the Regulations, which states,
“A contract between a professional and a club may only be terminated upon expiry of the
term of the contract or by mutual agreement”.
59. In light of all the above, the DRC concluded that on 11 November 2020 the Respondent 1
terminated the contract without just cause and should therefore bear the financial and
sporting consequences of his unjustified termination.
ii.
Consequences
60. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent 1.
61. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent 1 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
Page 10
five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected
period.
62. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual
parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
63. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the player to the Claimant 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. Therefore, other objective criteria
may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the 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.
64. While analysing the evidence on file, the Chamber considered that the only objective criteria
on which the compensation due to the Claimant could be based were the financial terms of
the contract with the Claimant and the new contract with the Respondent 2, 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 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.
65. 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 former contract signed with
the Claimant and the new one signed with the Respondent 2, for the period of 7 months
that was remaining since the unilateral termination of the contract by the player until its
expiry, i.e. from 11 November 2020 until 29 May 2021.
66. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, as per the contract, the Player was entitled to a total
remuneration of EUR 140,000.
67. In continuation, the Chamber went to determine the value of the new contract with the
Respondent 2 and, in so doing, recalled that as per its well-established practice, the value of
the new contract should be applied to the period during which the prematurely terminated
contract would have been valid, had it been allowed to expire at the end of its original term.
Page 11
68. Consequently, the value of the new contract should be calculated considering the period of
validity of the former contract, namely, 7 months. That leads to the conclusion that the value
of the new contract corresponds in total to USD 190,904 (i.e. USD 27,272 x 7 months), which
it is equivalent to EUR 157,474.
69. As a result, the Chamber concluded that, for the relevant period, the player’s average fixed
remuneration amounts to EUR 148,737 (i.e. EUR 297,474 [EUR 140,000 + EUR 157,474] /2).
70. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of
the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the amount of EUR 148,737 was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract due to
the Claimant.
71. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber 5 % interest p.a. shall apply over the amount of EUR 148,737 as from the
date of claim, i.e. 25 May 2021 until the date of effective payment.
72. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of the
Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club 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. Such automatic joint liability has been confirmed on numerous
occasions not only by the DRC, but also by the CAS.
73. At this stage, the Chamber took note that the Claimant requested the amount of CHF 17,750
to cover legal fees.
74. In this respect, the DRC referred to art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules which states, “No
legal costs shall be awarded. Parties shall bear all their own costs in connection with any
procedure”.
75. In view of the above, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant´s request for legal costs.
iii.
Sporting sanctions
76. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the further consequences of the breach
of contract in question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions
against the player in accordance with art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations. The cited provision
stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall be
imposed on any player found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
Page 12
77. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the RSTP, which
stipulates, inter alia, that the protected period shall last “for three entire seasons or three
years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract
is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two years,
whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is
concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
78. The DRC took note that the player was born on 12 November 1992 and the contract was
concluded on 4 November 2020. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the player terminated
such contract without just cause on 11 November 2020.
79. In addition, the Chamber acknowledged that on 20 January 2021, the player and the
Respondent 2 concluded the new contract valid from 1 February 2021 until 31 December
2022.
80. Having established the above, the DRC underlined that, as has been constantly held in the
past, the imposition of sporting sanctions on a given case is a serious and sensitive matter
which has to be analysed carefully taking into account all the circumstances and facts of the
matter. Indeed, in spite of its wording, art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations only gives the DRC
the discretion and not the obligation to impose sporting sanctions on a player or club after
an unjustified breach of contract.
81. With the above in mind, the Chamber considered that the facts of this matter indeed warrant
the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Player.
82. As has been explained in the preceding paragraphs, the player’s main argument to refuse
complying with the contract, namely, that he accepted a better offer from another club, is
clearly without merit. The Chamber underlined that parties who simply refuse to honour a
contract, purposely and without any valid reason need to be held accountable.
83. Consequently, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the
Chamber decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations, the Player had to be
sanctioned with a restriction of four months on his eligibility to participate in official matches.
84. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of whether, in view of art.
17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the player’s new club, i.e. the Respondent 2, must be considered
to have induced the player to unilaterally terminate his contract with the Claimant without
just cause during the protected period, and therefore shall be banned from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration
periods.
85. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with such provision, it shall be
presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional player who
has terminated his previous contract without just cause has induced that professional to
Page 13
commit a breach. Consequently, the Chamber pointed out that the party that is presumed to
have induced the player to commit a breach carries the burden to demonstrate the contrary.
86. In view of the above, given the lack of any reply by the Respondent 2, the Chamber had no
other option but to conclude that the Respondent 2 failed to reverse the presumption
contained in art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. As such, the Respondent 2 shall thus be deemed
to have induced the player to terminate the contract and shall be banned from registering
any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive
registration periods following the notification of the present decision. For the avoidance of
doubt, the Respondent 2 shall be able to register new players, either nationally or
internationally, only as of the next registration period following the complete serving of the
relevant sporting sanction. In particular, it may not make use of the exception and the
provisional measures stipulated in art. 6 par. 1 of the Regulations in order to register players
at an earlier stage.
iv. Conclusions
87. As a result of the aforementioned, the Chamber decided to partially accept the claim of the
Claimant and to order the player and the Respondent 2 to, jointly and severally, pay to the
Claimant the amount of EUR 148,737 as compensation plus 5% interest p.a. from 25 May
2021 until the date of effective payment.
88. A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is imposed on the
Respondent 1, B. This sanction applies with immediate effect as of the date of notification of
the present decision. The sporting sanctions shall remain suspended in the period between
the last official match of the season and the first official match of the next season, in both
cases including national cups and international championships for clubs.
89. The Respondent 2, C, shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
90. Finally, and given that sporting sanctions have been imposed on both Respondents, the DRC
concluded that art. 24bis does not apply to this case.
d. Costs
91. 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.
Page 14
92. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25 par.
8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in
these proceedings.
93. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 15
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent 1, B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of
notification of this decision compensation for breach of contract without just cause in the
amount of EUR 148,737 plus 5% interest p.a. from 25 May 2021 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
The Respondent 2, C, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned
compensation.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
The Respondent 1 and the Respondent 2 shall provide evidence of payment of the due
amount in accordance with point 2. to FIFA to the email address [email protected], duly
translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the above-mentioned time limit,
the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and a formal decision.
8. A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is imposed on the
Respondent 1, B. This sanction applies with immediate effect as of the date of notification of
the present decision. The sporting sanctions shall remain suspended in the period between the
last official match of the season and the first official match of the next season, in both cases
including national cups and international championships for clubs.
9. The Respondent 2, C, shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
10. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
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 17