Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9312
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 August 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Azizbek Amonov
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Azizbek Amonov, Uzbekistan
Represented by Dev Kumar Parmar
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Esteghlal FC, IR Iran
COUNTER-RESPONDENT II:
Nasaf FC, Uzbekistan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9312
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 February 2022, the Uzbek player, Azizbek Amonov (hereinafter: Claimant / CounterRespondent or player) and the Iranian club, Esteghlal FC (hereinafter: Respondent / CounterClaimant or club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from
the date of signature until 31 June 2024.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following
monies:
- USD 50,000 as sign-on fee “within 1 week after the ITC”;
- USD 50,000 on 24 February 2022;
- USD 50,000 on 16 March 2022;
- USD 50,000 on 20 April 2022;
- USD 50,000 on 21 May 2022;
- USD 50,000 on 21 June 2022;
- USD 100,000 “within a week before the first official match” of the season 2022/2023;
- USD 50,000 on 10 October 2022;
- USD 50,000 on 10 December 2022;
- USD 50,000 on 10 February 2023;
- USD 50,000 on 10 May 2023;
- USD 50,000 on 10 June 2022;
- USD 100,000 “within a week before the first official match” of the season 2023/2024;
- USD 60,000 on 10 October 2023;
- USD 60,000 on 10 December 2023;
- USD 60,000 on 10 February 2024;
- USD 60,000 on 10 May 2024;
- USD 60,000 on 10 June 2024.
3.
Art. 5.1 of the contract, inter alia, establishes under the title “Rewards, bonuses and fines”:
- “Iranian Premier League Championship: USD 20,000”;
- “Match-winning bonus for Iranian Premier League” home and away games: USD 200.
4.
Art. 9.9 of the contract reads as follows: “The parties hereby agreed that the club will accept
the transfer of the player to any club if the offer meets ALL the following conditions:
1-The official transfer request is received by Esteghlal.
2-The official transfer request should be received within 30 days after the last official
game of Esteghlal in season 2022-2023.
3-The transfer fee of the player should be an amount of minimum 750,000 USD NET to
be paid by the new club to Esteghlal”.
5.
On 29 August 2022, the player put the club in default and requested payment of USD
121,800, corresponding to salary payments and bonuses, within 10 days.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9312
6.
On 8 September 2022, the club replied with an email from [email protected]
acknowledging its debt and maintaining to settle the debt within a week.
7.
On 27 September 2022, the player acknowledged receipt of a payment in the amount of
USD 86,700 from the club.
8.
On 21 October 2022, the player put the club in default and requested payment of USD
85,696.20, corresponding to the residual debt, salary payments and bonuses, within 10
days.
9.
On 10 December 2022, the player acknowledged receipt of a payment in the amount of
USD 10,640 from the club.
10. On 14 December 2022, the club informed the player that all correspondence to the club
shall be sent to the email address [email protected].
11. On 19 December 2022, the player put the club in default email to
[email protected] and requested payment of USD 125,346.20, corresponding
to the residual debt, two salary payments and bonuses, within 15 days.
12. On 20 January 2023, the parties held a meeting and discussed a mutual termination without
agreeing terms.
13. On 2 February 2023, the player terminated the contract with the club due to outstanding
remuneration of more than two monthly salaries and based on art. 14bis RSTP.
14. On 3 February 2023, the club replied and insisted that a mutual termination was agreed
upon.
15. On 3 February 2023, the player reiterated his termination and denied having reached an
agreement.
16. On 15 February 2023, the player signed an employment contract with the Uzbek club, Nasaf
FC, valid as from 15 February 2023 until 30 December 2023, including a monthly salary of
Uzbekistan Som (UZS) 77,161,000 (approx. USD 6,630).
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9312
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 17 February 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
18. In his claim, the player requested payment of the following monies:
- USD 100,000 as outstanding remuneration (instalments due on 10 October
2022 and 10 December 2022) plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due dates;
- USD 3,146 as outstanding remuneration (remaining part of USD 100,000 due at
the beginning of the season 2022/2023) plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due date;
- USD 22,200 as outstanding remuneration (bonuses) plus 5% interest p.a. as of
the due dates;
- USD 450,000 as compensation for breach of contract (residual value) plus 5%
interest p.a.;
- “moral damages” determined by the DRC;
- USD 5,000 as legal fees.
19. In this context, the player argued that he had just cause to terminate the contract due to
the outstanding remuneration of “more than two monthly salaries covering 4 months”, after
having put the club in default.
20. On top of the outstanding salaries claimed, the player pointed out that the following
bonuses (USD 2,200) remained outstanding:
21. Furthermore, the player held that he was entitled to the bonus of USD 20,000 for winning
the championship during the season 2021/2022.
22. Moreover, the player alleged having been “removed” from training with the first team.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9312
b. Position of the Respondent / Counterclaim
23. In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim and lodged a counterclaim against the player
and his new club, Nasaf FC, requesting payment of the following monies:
- USD 750,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. (based
on art. 9.9 of the contract).
24. The club argued that the player terminated the contract without just cause.
25. Further, the club pointed out that all correspondence sent to [email protected] shall
not be taken into account since as the contract refers to [email protected].
26. Moreover, the club held that the player did not empower his agent properly to send
communication to the club and therefore the default notices shall not have any effect.
27. The club rejected the argument of the player that he was banned from training with the
first team.
28. Regarding the alleged outstanding payments, the club submitted receipts for the following
payments:
- USD 86,700 on 27 September 2022 as “signing-on fee from the season 2022/2023”;
- USD 150,000 on 30 May 2022 corresponding to the salaries of “Apr 20, May 21, and
June 21,2022”.
- USD 150,000 on 27 April 2022 corresponding to the “signing-on fee”.
29. In addition, the club held that the player was absent from training as of 3 February 2023
and that it rejected the issuance of the ITC since he was still under contract.
30. The club issued letters regarding disciplinary proceedings initiated due to the absence as
of 3 February 2023.
31. On account of the above, the club requested payment of compensation for breach of
contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9312
c. Reply of the player to the counterclaim
32. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player reiterated his position and rejected the
counterclaim.
33. He pointed out that his alleged absence only occurred after the termination of the contract.
34. As to the outstanding remuneration at the moment of the termination, the player argued
that the club failed to submit any proof that it remitted such payments.
d. Position of the new club
35. The new club failed to reply to the counterclaim.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9312
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
36. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 February 2023 and
submitted for decision on 24 August 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
37. 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 May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player and a club.
38. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 February 2023, the October 2022
edition edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
39. 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 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. Merits of the dispute
40. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-9312
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
41. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute that the player had just
cause to terminate the contract on 2 February 2023. The DRC duly noted that the club
lodged a counterclaim against the player and his new club.
42. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to conclude if the player had
just cause to terminate the contract and to decide on the consequences thereof.
43. In this framework, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that according to the
player, he terminated the contract with just cause due to outstanding remuneration.
44. The DRC took notice of the club’s argumentation according to which some default notices
were sent to the wrong email addresses, that more remuneration was paid than claimed
by the player and that he was absent without justification.
45. Taking into account the above, the DRC noted that notwithstanding previous notifications,
as of 14 December 2022, the player did correspond with the email address indicated for
the club in the contract. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the club’s argument shall
be rejected.
46. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber held that the player claimed not having
received his remuneration corresponding to USD 125,346.20, related to outstanding salary
payments, partial signing on fees and bonuses. Furthermore, the Claimant has provided
written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 19 December 2022, i.e. at least
15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 2 February 2023.
47. Considering the wording of art. 14bis par. 2 of the Regulations and the fact that the
Claimant’s salary was not due on a monthly basis, the DRC calculated the pro-rata value of
the remuneration and concluded that the amount of USD 125,346.20 corresponded to
more than 4 monthly salaries (USD 350,000 as yearly salary divided by 12= 29,166.66 as
pro rata monthly salary).
48. It has to be noted that in the case at hand the club bore the burden of proving that it indeed
complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.
Nonetheless, the evidence provided by the Respondent ,namely the receipts, do not prove
the payment of the amounts claimed as outstanding by the Claimant, as they refer to
previous payments which are not claimed in the current proceedings.
49. Thus, the DRC concluded that the player had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the
contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
50. In line with the above, the Chamber rejected the club’s counterclaim.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-9312
ii. Consequences
51. 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 club.
52. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are the following:
- USD 100,000 as outstanding remuneration (instalments due on 10 October 2022 and
10 December 2022);
- USD 3,146 as outstanding remuneration (remaining part of USD 100,000 due at the
beginning of the season 2022/2023);
- USD 22,200 as outstanding remuneration (acknowledged bonuses).
53. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 125,346.
54. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
55. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
56. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-9312
57. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player 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.
58. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 450,000 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
59. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to 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 enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
60. Indeed, the player found employment with the Uzbek club, Nasaf FC between 15 February
2023 and 30 December 2023. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the
player was entitled to approximately USD 6,630 per month. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 72,930, that
is, 11 times USD 6,630.
61. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore
decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
62. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
USD 72,930. The Chamber reminded the parties that, as per the last sentence of art. 17
par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value
of the prematurely terminated contract.
63. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of USD 450,000 to the player (i.e. USD 450,000 minus USD 72,930 plus USD 72,930), which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-9312
64. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 4 February 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
65. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its 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.
66. In this regard, the DRC highlighted 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. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
67. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
68. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
69. The DRC 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. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-9312
d. Costs
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-9312
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Azizbek Amonov, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Esteghlal FC, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- USD 3,146 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8 August 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 50,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 October 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 50,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 December
2022 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 22,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 February
2023 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 450,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 4 February 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-9312
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 Governing the Football
Tribunal).
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
pg. 15