Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, 5 December 2019,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
S tijn Boey kens (Belgium ), member
Abu Nay eem S hohag (Banglades h), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Play er A, Country B,
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent I
against the club,
Club C, Country D
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club E, Country F
as CounterRespondent II
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 7 August 2018, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Club of
Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or Club C), valid as from 7 August 2018 until
31 May 2020.
2.
In accordance with clause 3 of the contract, the player was, inter alia, entitled to the
following amounts:
2018 / 2019 Season
“580,000 […] Euros net for the full season, of which 110,000 (ninety thousand) Euros
shall be paid of the 20th July 2018, 70,000 (ninety thousand) Euros shall be paid of
the 20th of August 2018 and 400,000 […] Euros net shall be paid in 10 equal
installments (wages) between due the 1st of each month from September 2018 to
June 2019”.
2019/2020
“580,000 […] Euros net for the full season, of which 90,000 (ninety thousand) Euros
shall be paid of the 20th July 2019, 90,000 (ninety thousand) Euros shall be paid of
the 20th of August 2019 and 400,000 […] Euros net shall be paid in 10 equal
installments (wages) between due the 1st of each month from September 2019 to
June 2020”.
3.
Furthermore, clause 8 of the contract stipulated that, “the parties hereto shall be
obliged to promptly notify each other and Football Federation of Country D any
change in their respective addresses by registered mail. Otherwise, a notice
delivered to the respective addresses of the parties specified in this contract shall be
deemed to have been served properly. All notices including disciplinary sanctions
and out of squad decisions regarding the Player can also be made to the Players’ email account”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 2 of 16
4.
On 9 January 2019, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against Club C for
breach of contract and requested the payment of the following amounts:
Outstanding remuneration: EUR 100,000, plus “interest starting from the due
dates”, corresponding to the following:
- “EUR 20,000 […] from 01.10.2018
- EUR 40,000 […] from 01.11.2018
- EUR 40,000 […] from 01.12.2018”.
Compensation: EUR 820,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract as
from 1 January 2019 until 31 May 2020, plus “interest from the termination date of
26.12.2018”.
5.
Furthermore, the player requested an additional compensation in the amount of
EUR 240,000, corresponding to six monthly salaries.
6.
The Claimant further requested that Club C shall pay “the judicial costs and the
attorneyship fees that the Claimant is faced with”.
7.
Finally, the player requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against Club C.
8.
In his claim, the player deemed that Club C failed to make several payments
pursuant to the contract and, consequently, explained that he had put the club in
default by means of a fax on 7 December 2018, for the payment of EUR 180,000,
corresponding to part of the advance payment and the salary for September,
October, November and December 2018 setting a 15 days’ time limit in order to
remedy the default.
9.
In particular, the player argued that Club C failed to pay or to reply to the default
notice and therefore, on 26 December 2018, he unilaterally terminated the contract
with the club via fax. In this regard, the player explained having sent the
termination notice to the club to the same fax number as the default notice.
10.
In addition, the player pointed out that “after the delivery (on 26.12.2018) of the
said termination letter by the Respondent, the Respondent has paid to the Claimant
in the amount of 80,000 EUR which corresponds to his 2 (two) monthly salaries”.
11.
Consequently, the player claimed that he “waited for the payment for a long time
and warned the Respondent in writing. After putting the Respondent in default
and waited for a long time, the Claimant unilaterally terminated his Contract with
just cause and with immediate effect on 26th of December”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 3 of 16
12.
In addition, the player stressed that due to the circumstances he shall be entitled to
an additional compensation of 6 months.
13.
In its reply to the claim, Club C dismissed the player’s claim and filed a counterclaim
against the player for breach of contract. Club C requested that the player shall pay
a compensation of EUR 820,000, corresponding to the residual value of the player’s
contract.
14.
In this regard, Club C acknowledged to have failed to make some payments due to
the club’s “unexpected short-term cash flow difficulties due to extraordinary
significant expenses which had not been anticipated”.
15.
However, according to Club C, “this situation was duly explained to the Player and
the Club assured him that the difficulties were merely temporary and that all
payments outstanding would be fully settled. The Club committed to make as many
payments as feasible and as soon as possible. The Player confirmed that he
understood the situation”.
16.
Furthermore, Club C deemed to have made the following payments to the player:
20 July 2018
EUR 110,000
3 October 2018
EUR 20,000
19 October 2018
EUR 10,000
1 November 2018
EUR 20,000
6 December 2018
EUR 20,000
26 December 2018
EUR 80,000
17.
In view of the above, Club C deemed that “the Club made the point of making
regular payments to the Player, which is undeniable evidence of its good faith
towards the Player and its concern towards his emotional stability and financial
sustainability. Although the payments fell short of the contractually agreed
amounts, the Club, in addition to the significant initial instalment of EUR 110,000,
made monthly payments to the Player in October (2 payments), November and
December (2 payments).”
18.
In addition, Club C claimed that “the Player had terminated his Contract by means
of a letter dated 26 December 2018, without having ever properly, previously and
adequately warned the Club that it would do so in case the amounts in arrears
would not be settled by a particular date. […] The Club was surprised and confused
with the sequence of events, as the Player’s decision to terminate the Contract was
not consistent with the absence of any complaint whatsoever up until that
moment”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 4 of 16
19.
In this regard, Club C argued that it never received the default notice and that the
fax was sent to the wrong fax number stating that “this is not the Club’s fax
number” and that “the positive fax report that the Player may have received is
therefore simply a confirmation that the fax was delivered to someone, but
certainly not the Club”.
20.
Moreover, Club C deemed that it found out, that the player “had actually been
negotiating his move to a new club for quite some time and that his intention was
never to fulfil the Contract, but rather to engineer a way to force a unilateral
termination, leaving him free to sign for another club, while, in addition,
potentially putting him in a position to claim for compensation from the Club”.
21.
In addition, Club C argued that “even if the Player had sent the Default Notice to
the Club by fax, such would in any event not have been sufficient, as the Parties
contractually agreed that all notices addressed to the Club would have to be sent by
courier.”
22.
Consequently, Club C stressed that the player terminated the contract unilaterally
and without just cause and therefore, shall pay compensation to Club C.
23.
Furthermore, Club C requested that the player’s new club, Club E (hereinafter: Club
E), must be held jointly liable for the payment of the compensation and that
sporting sanctions shall be imposed on the player and his new club.
24.
Alternatively, “in the unlikely event that the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
would find that Player A had just cause to terminate the employment contract”,
Club C requested to “reject the claim dated 9 January 2019” and to “find that Club
C shall pay a maximum amount of EUR 80,000 to Mr Player A as outstanding
salaries” and to “find that Club C does not owe any compensation for breach of
contract to Player A”.
25.
In his replica and reply to the counterclaim, the player rejected Club C’s arguments,
in particular, that the player was “happy and he understood that the Respondent
was in an economical mess”.
26.
Furthermore, the player claimed to have noticed certain discrepancies of the club’s
fax numbers and due to that “chose to send it to Football Federation of Country D
as well and requested them to make the communication to the Respondent in
official way to avoid misundertakings. Football Federation of Country D accepted
our request in line with his regulations and notified the Respondent in accordance
with his legislation”. In this regard, the player submitted to the file the relevant fax
reports and letters from the Football Federation of Country D.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 5 of 16
27.
In this regard, the player highlighted that “the fax number which was used by them
[Football Federation of Country D] is the very same number that we eventually used
in our communications. The Respondent obviously changed his number before
Football Federation of Country D after these communications and now tries to
make a fiction before […] [the] Committee that the Claimant had not made any
warnings before the termination”.
28.
Consequently, the player repeated his request as stated in his claim.
29.
In its duplica, Club C reiterated its previous statements, in particular, that the player
did not sent any default notice and failed to prove that he did.
30.
Furthermore, it once more highlighted that the player would have been
contractually obliged to send any correspondence by courier.
31.
Consequently, Club C claimed that the player did not comply with the requirements
of article 14bis of the RSTP and therefore terminated without just cause.
32.
In its reply to the counterclaim, Club E rejected that it is jointly and severally liable
for any compensation the Player is obliged to pay to Club C.
33.
In this regards, Club E argued that the first time that the club became aware of the
player’s availability was after a whatsapp message from the player’s agent on 27
December 2018. In view of the above, Club E stressed that “both Mr. G [the player’s
agent] as well as Mr. H (attorney of the Player) underlined that the Player was free
of contract and that no transfer compensation had to be paid”.
34.
Furthermore, Club E deemed that it received the two letters sent by the player to
Club C and that “Club E was under the legitimate assumption that these letters
were in fact sent to the correct fax number of Club C […], Club E acted in good faith
to trust that the information as mentioned in the UEFA Address List of Clubs in
Europe 2018/2019 was indeed correct”.
35.
Moreover, Club E stressed that “if the aforementioned letters were sent by Mr. H to
the wrong fax number – such a circumstance cannot lead to the possible jointly and
severally liability of Club E”. Consequently, Club E highlighted that it “did not
induce the Player” as “it was the intermediary of the Player who contacted Club E
after the employment contract with Club C was terminated”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 6 of 16
36.
On 5 January 2019, the player signed an employment contract with the club of
Country F, Club E, valid as from 11 January 2019 until 30 June 2020, according to
which the player was entitled to, inter alia, a monthly gross salary of EUR 13,750
during the 2018/2019 season and EUR 15,625 during the 2019/2020 season.
According to the information available on TMS, the sporting season runs from 1 July
until 30 June of the following year.
37.
In this regard, the player provided a list, in accordance to which he received the
following net amounts per month: i) January 2019: EUR 5,327.64 ii) February – June
2019: EUR 7,438.57 iii) July 2019 – June 2020: EUR 8,343.26.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 January 2019.
Consequently, the 2018 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 October 2019), 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 of Country B and a club of Country D.
3.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the
information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 29 November 2019 by means of which
the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member K
refrained from participating in the deliberations due to personal reasons as well as
the member L, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of
club and player representatives and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber
adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2
of the Regulations.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 7 of 16
4.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 October 2019), and considering that the claim was lodged on 9
January 2019, the June 2018 edition of the aforementioned regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
5.
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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, in
accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within
the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any
documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.
6.
Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances
surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation
on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with
which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the
burden of proof.
7.
First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 7 August 2018, the
player and Club C had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of
its signature until 31 May 2020, pursuant to which Club C undertook to pay to the
player the remuneration, as established in point I.2 above.
8.
Furthermore, the members of the DRC took note of the fact that, on 7 December
2018, the player had sent a fax to Club C and had put the latter in default of
payment of the amount of EUR 180,000, corresponding to part of the advance
payment and the salary for September, October, November and December 2018
setting a 15 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 8 of 16
9.
Moreover, the DRC took note that, according to the player, he had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 26 December 2018, since Club C
failed to reply to his default notice sent on 7 December 2018 and since no payment
had been made by the latter in this respect. In this regard, the player affirmed that
he had no alternative but to terminate the contract and deemed that Club C should
be held liable for the early termination of said contract.
10.
In addition, the Chamber noted that, according to the player, “after the delivery (on
26.12.2018) of the said termination letter”, Club C proceeded with the payment of
the amount of EUR 80,000.
11.
Subsequently, the members of the DRC took note that Club C, for its part,
acknowledged to have failed to make several payments to the player due to the
club’s “unexpected short-term cash flow difficulties due to extraordinary significant
expenses which had not been anticipated”.
12.
In continuation, the Chamber observed that Club C claimed that the player
terminated the contract without just cause “by means of a letter dated 26
December 2018” and further stated that it never received the player’s default notice
and that the fax was sent to the wrong fax number.
13.
Moreover, the DRC noted that Club C alleged that, even if it had received the
player’s default notice sent via fax on 7 December 2018, such notice could not be
taken into account in accordance with clause 8 of the contract as “the parties
contractually agreed that all notices addressed to the club would have to be sent by
courier”. The Chamber further observed that Club C stressed that the player
terminated the contract unilaterally and without just cause and therefore affirmed
being entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract.
14.
In light of the foregoing, the DRC considered that the underlying issue in this
dispute, considering the parties’ position, was to determine as to whether the
player had just cause to terminate the employment contract and to determine the
consequences thereof.
15.
In this context, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to clarify that, in accordance
with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in the present case, the Respondent bore
the burden of proving either the payment of the Claimant’s salaries or that it had a
valid reason for not having done so.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 9 of 16
16.
In addition, the Chamber recalled that the Club C alleged having had some financial
difficulties in order to justify its non-payment of the player’s outstanding salaries. In
particular, the DRC noted that the Respondent held that due to the club’s
“unexpected short-term cash flow difficulties due to extraordinary significant
expenses which had not been anticipated”
17.
However, the Chamber wished to stress that, in line with its well-established
jurisprudence, a club’s financial difficulties cannot be considered a valid justification
for non-compliance with its essential contractual obligation deriving from the
signature of an employment contract, that is, to pay a player’s remuneration in full
and in a timely manner. Consequently, the Chamber decided that this
argumentation of Club C cannot be followed on this point.
18.
Furthermore, and concerning Club C’s allegations that it never received the player’s
default notice and that the fax was sent to the wrong fax number, the Chamber
observed that the default notice had been sent to the exact same fax number as the
one used in the termination letter, which Club C does not deny having received. In
addition, the Chamber underlined that the default notice had also been sent via Fax
to the Football Federation of Country D, which was confirmed by the latter. In view
of the above, the Chamber concluded that the player provided sufficient evidence
that it duly put the club in default in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations
and decided to reject Club C’s arguments in this connection.
19.
With the above in mind, the Chamber highlighted that on the basis of the parties’
submissions, it could be noted that Club C did not contest that, by the time the
player addressed it with his default letter on 7 December 2018, at least the amount
of EUR 160,000 were outstanding. Moreover the members of the DRC observed that
it also remained undisputed that the player provided Club C with 15 days to remedy
its default and that Club C never reacted to the default letter.
20.
However, the Chamber highlighted that on the basis of the parties’ submissions, it
could be noted that Club C provided several bank documents confirming that the
total amount of EUR 260,000 had been paid to the player during the course of the
employment relationship. However, the Chamber noted that out of the total
amount of EUR 260,000, only the amount of EUR 80,000 had been paid after the
player had put the club in default of payment on 7 December 2018. More in
particular, the Chamber noted that said amount had been paid to the player on the
date of termination of the contract, i.e. on 26 December 2018.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 10 of 16
21.
In continuation, taking into account the consideration under point. II./3. above, the
DRC referred to art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, which, inter alia, stipulates that,
in the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his
contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has
granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its
financial obligation(s).
22.
Consequently, on account of the above and considering that, when the player
terminated the contract, two monthly salaries were due despite having the player
provided Club C with 15 days to remedy the default, the DRC concluded that, on 26
December 2018, the player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment
contract.
23.
As a result, the Chamber decided that Club C is to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player. The Chamber
subsequently also decided that the counterclaim lodged by Club C against the
player and Club E should be rejected.
24.
Having established that Club C is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contract, the DRC focused his attention on the consequences of such
termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC
established that the player is entitled to receive from Club C compensation for
breach of contract, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the
relevant employment contract.
25.
Along those lines, the DRC firstly referred to the player’s request regarding the
outstanding remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the
employment contract. In this respect, the DRC concurred that Club C must fulfil its
obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal
principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
26.
Consequently, and bearing in mind that the player terminated his employment
contract on 26 December 2018 and that, on the same day, Club C paid the amount
of EUR 80,000, the Chamber decided that Club C is liable to pay to the player
outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 80,000, pertaining to his monthly
salaries of November and December 2018.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 11 of 16
27.
In addition, taking into consideration the specific request of the player on the point,
the Chamber decided to award the latter interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the total
amount of EUR 80,000 as follows:
- 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 2 November 2018;
- 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 2 December 2018.
28.
Moreover, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive compensation for breach of
contract from Club C.
29.
In continuation, the DRC focused his attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant by the Respondent in the
case at stake. In doing so, the DRC firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in
particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the
dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity
of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and
other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five
years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected
period.
30.
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. In this regard, the Chamber
observed that the employment contract does not contain any such clause.
31.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Club C to the player had to be assessed in application of
the parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. Bearing in mind the
foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to
the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its termination and
concluded that the player would have been entitled to receive EUR 820,000 as
remuneration had the employment contract been executed until its regular expiry
date, i.e. 31 May 2020. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of
EUR 820,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 12 of 16
32.
In continuation, the Chamber assessed whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by
means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. In this
respect, the DRC deemed it necessary to refer to the first sentence of art. 17 par. 1
lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player signed a new
contract by the time of the decision, the value of the new contract for the period
corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated contract shall
be deducted from the residual value of the contract that was terminated early (the
”Mitigated Compensation”).
38.
In respect of the above, and according to the information contained in the TMS, the
Chamber recalled that, on 5 January 2019, the Claimant signed an employment
contract with the club of Country F, Club E, valid as from 11 January 2019 until 30
June 2020, according to which, he was entitled to, inter alia, a monthly gross salary
of EUR 13,750 during the 2018/2019 season and EUR 15,625 during the 2019/2020
season. In this regard, the player provided a list, in accordance to which he received
the following net amounts per month: i) January 2019: EUR 5,327.64 ii) February –
June 2019: EUR 7,438.57 iii) July 2019 – June 2020: EUR 8,343.26. On account of the
above, such amount shall be deducted, leading to a mitigated compensation in the
amount of EUR 685,703.65.
33.
Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the second sentence of art. 17
par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in addition to the mitigated
compensation, the player shall be entitled to an additional compensation of three
monthly salaries, subject to the early termination of the contract being due to
overdue payables.
34.
With the above in mind, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant additional
compensation corresponding to three monthly salaries, i.e. EUR 120,000, in
accordance with the above-mentioned provision.
35.
Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber
decided that Club C must pay the amount of EUR 805,703.65 as compensation for
breach of contract to the player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a fair
and reasonable amount.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 13 of 16
36.
In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to
award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim, i.e. 9
January 2019, until the date of effective payment.
37.
Therefore, the DRC decided to partially accept the player’s claim and concluded its
deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the player.
38.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the
Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate
that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the
consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant
amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
39.
In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due
amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
40.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from
the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present
decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective
on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
41.
Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted
immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in
accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 14 of 16
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent I outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 80,000, plus interest
until the date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 2 November 2018;
b. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 40,000 as from 2 December 2018.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent I compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 805,703.65,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 January 2019 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I is rejected.
6.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent I is directed to inform the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as
indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account
to which the Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned under points 3. and 4.
above.
7.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due
amounts plus interest in accordance with points 3. and 4. above to FIFA to the email address [email protected], duly translated, if need be, into one of the official
FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
8.
In the event that the amounts plus interest due in accordance with points 3. and 4.
above are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant w ithin 45 day s as from
the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I of the relevant bank details
to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be
banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players).
9.
The ban mentioned in point 8 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 15 of 16
10.
In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are still not paid by the end
of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter
shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration
and a formal decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or
the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 20 of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
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. 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 (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
Page 16 of 16