Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12586
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 March 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Antal Liviu
Ion
BY:
André dos Santos Megale (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Antal Liviu Ion, Romania
Represented by Anca Mituică
RESPONDENT:
Szombathelyi Haladas Labdarugo es Sportszolgaltato Kft., Hungary
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12586
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 January 2022, the Romanian player, Antal Liviu Ion (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and the
Hunagarian club, Szombathelyi Haladas Labdarugo es Sportszolgaltato Kft. (hereinafter: club or
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 11 January 2022
until 30 June 2023.
2.
According to the article XII of the contract, the club undertook to pay the player, the following:
“Amount and currency of the footballer's salary (gross/ net: 3.330.000,-FT (Forints) (9.250,-euros)”
3.
On 7 February 2022, the club signed a temporary transfer agreement with the club, ZTE FC Zrt
(hereinafter: ZTE), and on the same date the player and ZTE concluded a temporary employment
contract (hereinafter: temporary contract) valid as from 7 February 2022 until 30 June 2022.
4.
According to the temporary contract, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of HUF (Hungary
Forint) 3,330,000 payable on the 10th day of each month.
5.
According to the player with the consent of the coach of ZTE, he started his vacation on 13 May 2022,
prior to the last match of ZTE which was scheduled for 15 May 2022.
6.
The player mentioned that he “did not train with ZTE in June 2022, due to the fact that the club did not
request his presence and it was known, at the same time, that he would return to the club on July 1, 2022,
due to the expiration of the transfer agreement. “
7.
On 15 May 2022, the club proposed to the player to terminate the contract.
8.
On 24 May 2022, the player sent the following email to the club:
“Dear Sir,
Considering the proposal communicated to Mr. Antal Liviu last week in order to end, by mutual agreement,
the sport activity contract concluded with your club and the fact that, until today was not signed any
agreement with regard to the contract concluded with ZTE FC, as a response to your proposal, our answer
is as follows:
1. ZTE will pay the financial rights for May and June 2022
2. Szombathelyi Haladas Labdarugo es Sportszolgaltato Kft. will pay, as compensation, the
financial rights for July and August 2022
In case we will not receive an answer to this e-mail until tomorrow, please ignore this e-mail.
We stay at your disposal, for any future information.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12586
9.
On 27 May 2022, the club replied and as per their correspondence, inter alia, made the following
suggestions to the player:
“1. The employment contract shall be terminated by ordinary termination or mutual agreement on the
date of June 30, 2022, as the player's loan agreement also expires on this date. The reason of termination
is the player's violation of his employment contract and noncompliance with the naturalization conditions
(…)
2. We will terminate the employment relationship with immediate effect on May 31, 2022. This is
conditional on a serious breach of contract.”
10. On 3 June 2022, the player sent his response to the club’s correspondence and mentioned that (i)
obtaining Hungarian citizenship was not a condition of his contract, (ii) he started his holiday earlier
as he was not included in the team for the last match of the championship on 15 May 2022 and
further wishing to confirm if (iii) the club ended the employment contract with immediate effect on
31 May 2022.
11. On 17 June 2022, the player sent a further notice to the club, requesting if the club can confirm
within 24hrs if the contract was terminated on 31 May 2022.
12. On 20 June 2022, the club, informed the player that the contract was not terminated on 31 May
2022.
13. On 27 June 2022, the player, sent the following email to the club, inter alia, stipulating :
-
Szombathelyi Haladas Labdarugo es Sportszolgaltato Kft., will pay , as compensation, the financial rights
for June and July 2022
-
The payment of the amount will be made at the date of signing of the termination agreement
If we will receive no answer from your behalf no later today, please communicate to us the training
program for the first team of the club”
14. On 28 June 2022, the club sent a letter to the player, stipulating the following:
“Szombathelyi Haladas Kft is waiting for Antal Liviu Ion at 10 a.m. on Rohonci út, Szombathely, on July 1,
2022, for a meeting and the necessary medical examinations, and then for training at the Illés academy
at 3 p.m. The next training session will be on Saturday morning (07.02), the head coach will inform about
next week.”
15. On 1 July 2022, the player sent its answer to the club informing it that he will not attend the training
and that the club did not have the intention to continue the contract.
16. On 1 July 2022, the club, terminated the contract with the player.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12586
17. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 1 July 2022, the
player signed an employment contract with the Romanian club, CS Mioveni valid as from 1 July 2022
until 15 June 2024, including a monthly salary of RON (Romania New Lei) 30,000 per month.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 09 November 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
19. In his claim, the player argued that he did not violate the obligations assumed in relation with ZTE
FC or the club and that the club did not have just cause to end the employment contract concluded
on January 11, 2022.
20. The Claimant requested the following relief:
“➢ Considering the provisions of article 17 from FIFA RSTP, order the Respondent to pay the total amount
of 42.000 euros net, as compensation for the breach of contract equals to the remaining value of the
contract considering monthly salaries for the period 01.07.2022 – 30.06.2024
➢ Order the Respondent to pay 5% interest p.a. as from 01.07.2022 until the date of effective payment”
b. Position of the Respondent
21. Notwithstanding being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12586
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 9 November
2023 and submitted for decision on 6 March 2024. 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.
2.
Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 February 2024 edition), the Single Judge
is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Romanian player and a Hungarian club.
3.
Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition)
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 9 November 2023, the May 2023
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
4.
The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
5.
His competence and the applicable regulations having been established; the Chamber
Single Judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12586
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
6.
The foregoing having been established; the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and noted that the case at hand pertains to a claim of the player for compensation
for breach of contract against the club.
7.
The Single Judge took note that the club terminated the contract with the player on 1 July
2022.
8.
In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine whether or
not the club, under the said circumstances, could validly terminate the contract with the
player.
9.
The Single Judge noted that – after having been provided with the claim of the Claimant –
the Respondent failed to present its response. By not presenting its position to the claim,
the Single Judge was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right of defence
and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge
expressed that he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documentation already on
file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
11. In this respect, the Single Judge, noted that following the departure of the player from the
club ZTE on 13 May 2022, following his temporary contract, he failed to return to the club,
in this regard the Single Judge observed that though the player indicated that he was
authorised to leave ZTE at this point, he failed to provide any documentary evidence or
corroborating documentation, proving that he had authorisation to do so.
12. Following the aforesaid, the Single Judge noted that throughout June 2022, the parties had
numerous correspondence amongst each other discussing a potential mutual termination
of the employment relationship, however to no avail.
13. On account of the above, the Single Judge was therefore of the opinion that both parties
had to intention to mutually terminate the contract, however prior to it reaching such an
agreement, the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract on 1 July 2022 without
notice.
14. The Single Judge highlighted that a club considering the option of terminating a contract
with a player, should also respect the ultima ratio principle; in that less stringent disciplinary
measures should be considered and applied first before terminating. In this regard, the
club must first of all requests the player to return to the club and set a reasonable deadline
to do so. In casu, the Single Judge noted that the club did not request the player to return
within a reasonable deadline neither did it make the necessary travel arrangements for the
player’s return.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12586
15. Following the above line of reasoning and in accordance with the termination notice of the
club, the Single Judge concluded that it was indeed the club who terminated the contract
with the player without just cause on 1 July 2022 and therefore should be held liable for its
breach.
ii. Consequences
16. Having stated the above, the members of the Single Judge turned his attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
17. In this context, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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.
18. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
19. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge recalled that said provision provides
for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
20. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
concluded that the amount of HUF 39,960,000 (i.e., July 2022 until June 2023 at a monthly
salary of HUF 3,330,000) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
21. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12586
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.
22. Indeed, the player found employment with the Romanian club, CS Mioveni valid as from 1
July 2022 until 15 June 2024. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the
player was entitled to approximately RON (Romania New Lei) 30,000 per month
(Approximately - HUF 2,328,438.67 per month). Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
player mitigated his damages in the total amount of RON 360,000 (approximately HUF
27,941,264), that is, HUF 2,328,438.67 times 12.
23. 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 HUF 12,018,736 to the player (i.e., HUF 39,960,000 minus HUF 27,941,264), which was to
be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter.
24. 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 1 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
25. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded that in accordance with the information available in the
FIFA Transfer Matching System together with article XII of the contract, the currency
established in the matter at hand is Hungarian Forint (HUF).
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
26. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with his 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.
27. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
28. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12586
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.
29. 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.
30. The Single Judge 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.
d. Costs
31. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
32. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
33. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12586
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Antal Liviu Ion, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Szombathelyi Haladas Labdarugo es Sportszolgaltato Kft., must pay to the
Claimant the following amount(s):
- HUF 12,018,736 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 1 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant 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.
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 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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12586
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. 12