Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12516
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 March 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Danilo Arboleda Hurtado
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay & the Netherlands), Member
Oleg Zadubrovskiy (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Danilo Arboleda Hurtado, Colombia
Represented by Jirayr Habibian
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Al Ain, UAE
Represented by Nezar Ahmed
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12516
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 June 2022, the Colombian player, Danilo Arboleda Hurtado (hereinafter: the player or
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Emirati club, Al Ain (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the first
contract) valid as from 1 July 2022 until the end of the 2022/2023 season in UAE (according
to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), said season came to
an end on 30 June 2023) and against payment of a fixed monthly salary of USD 83,333 (UAE
306,000).
2.
The player suffered a total rupture of the right Achilles tendon in October 2022 during an
official game with the Club and underwent surgery on 24 October 2022.
3.
In January 2023, the club handed a new employment contract (hereinafter: the extension
contract) that was not signed by the club, for the player to sign it and in accordance with
which the parties would extend their contractual relationship until 30 June 2025 (with an
extension option – exercisable by the club only (cf. clause 12 of the extension contract –
until 30 June 2026) against payment of a total fixed remuneration of USD 2,900,000 (or of
USD 4,400,000, if the extension option until 30 June 2026 was exercised), as follows:
-
USD 200,000 as “down payment of the contract’s total value” payable by 31 August
2023;
-
USD 1,300,000 as salary for the season 2023/2024;
-
USD 1,400,000 as salary for the season 2024/2025;
-
USD 1,500,000 as salary for the season 2025/2026 (if the parties decided to extend
their contractual relationship for the said season).
4.
On 20 January 2023, the player signed the extension contract.
5.
On 9 May 2023, the club handed a banking cheque to the player for the latter to cash an
amount equal to USD 200,000 (AED 734,800), which the player cashed out.
6.
In May 2023, the player underwent a second surgery in connection with the injury he
suffered in October 2022.
7.
The player travelled to London and passed the medical examination successfully on 20-23
June 2023.
8.
In July 2023, the club announced on social media the list of its players for the Summer
Camp, the player being part thereof.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12516
9.
On 9 July 2023, the club allegedly approached the player (via his agent), informing the latter
of its wish to transfer the player on loan to the Qatari club, Al Alhi, for the season 2023/2024
– proposal that the player rejected arguing the following: “it is not acceptable that at this
stage in July 2023 (where the transfer market is almost at its end where all other clubs in the
region are now focusing on their pre-seasons and have concluded most of their contracts), that
the Club comes with such proposition.” Therein, the player stated that he had already
received the payment of USD 200,000 cf. the extension contract.
10. On 10 July 2023, the club replied thereto and informed the player that no contract had been
signed for the season 2023/2024, as the negotiations undertaken by the parties have been
fruitless, and that the club is no longer interested in counting with the services of the player
beyond 30 June 2023.
11. On 14 July 2023, the player sent a document to the club titled “Letter before action” whereby
the player informed the club of its breach of the extension contract and considered that
the contract was unilaterally terminated by the club without just cause on 10 July 2023 and
thereby requested the club to proceed with the payment of UDS 2,900,000 to the player as
compensation for breach of contract within the following 15 days.
12. On 14 July 2023, the player and the Qatari club, Al Ahli FC (hereinafter: the new club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the new contract), valid as from 14 July
2023 until 30 June 2024 and whereby the player is entitled to a total fixed remuneration of
USD 958,333 during the term of the contract, i.e. 11.5 salaries of USD 83,333 each.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
a. Position of the player
13. On 3 November 2023, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA, requesting to
be awarded compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of USD 3,200,000,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due date, as well as legal costs in the amount
of USD 20,000, p.a., broken down by the player as follows:
-
USD 3,200,000 (corresponding to the fixed remuneration payable for the seasons
2023/2024 (USD 1,300,000), 2024/2025 (USD 1,400,000) and 2025/2026 (USD 1,500,000)
minus the down payment already performed (USD 200,000) and the alleged new
income of the player with his new club during the overlapping period (USD 800,000)
(the fixed remuneration communicated by the player and the one stated in the contract
differs, the latter being USD 958,333).
-
USD 20,000 as legal costs in connection with the present proceedings.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12516
14. In his claim, the player argued – inter alia – the following:
-
That he “was not handed over the countersigned copy of the Agreement by the Club as
alleged by the Club that the registration with the UAE FA will only happen towards the end
of the Season. The Player didn’t suspect anything at the time given that the season still had
around 5 months to expire and that he had secured a renewal which will allow him to focus
further on his employment and career rather than thinking of finding another Club post the
end of this Agreement.”
-
That, from all the evidence on file, i.e.: the extension contract handed to the player, the
club’s payment of USD 200,000 (which corresponds to the lump sum payable as per the
extension contract) the player being sent to London to pass his medical examination
in order to continue rendering his professional services for the club and being included
in the club’s Summer Camp for the pre-season 2023/2024 and the club’s intention to
transfer him on loan to the referred Qatari club for the abovementioned season; it is
evident that the parties entered into the extension contract.
-
That it is clear that the club – on 10 July 2023 and upon the player’s refusal to be
transferred on loan to Al Ahli for the season 2023/2024 – decided to argue that no
contract had been concluded for said season, which must be considered a breach of
contract (of the extension contract, in casu) for the abovementioned reasons and that
the club is therefore liable to pay to him a compensation for breach of contract cf. art.
17 of the RSTP and the legal principle: pacta sunt servanda.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the club
15. In its reply, the club rejected the allegations of the player and maintained – inter alia – the
following:
-
That the player was employed with the club until 30 June 2023 as per the first
contract and, therefore, any order given to the player / remuneration paid to him
on or before 30 June 2023 was part of the performance and execution of the first
contract and has absolutely nothing to do with the execution of the disputed
extension contract.
-
That “the Player did not participate in any football activities, whether matches or
training sessions, as from the time of his injury in October 2022 until the natural
expiration date of [the first contract] on 30 June 2023.”
-
That “in June 2023 (i.e., during the active term of the [first contract]), Al-Ain asked the
Player to undergo a medical exam in London, UK in order to assess the recovery status
from the aforesaid injury.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12516
-
That the player has not submitted evidence that would demonstrate beyond any
doubt that the parties entered into the extension contract and that is because the
parties never entered into said agreement, as the club never signed it. In addition,
the club argues that the player did not send a signed copy of the extension
contract to the club on 20 January 2023 and that it was only signed by the player
before starting the present proceedings. In order to prove this extent, the club
refers to: the alleged fact that – on the picture provided by the player where he is
allegedly signing the extension contract – the player used a blue-ink pen to sign
the paper that appears on said picture, whereas, in the version of the extension
contract provided by the player along with his claim, the signature had been made
with a black-ink pen; metadata in connection with the player-signed version of the
extension contract provided, in accordance with which the said document had
been created on 12 October 2023, i.e. just before the player lodged his claim
against the club before FIFA.
-
As for the payment of USD 200,000 made by the club to the player via a banking
cheque on 9 May 2023, the club argued that it corresponds to an advance
payment of the player’s last 3 months under the first contract, as the player
requested said advance payment “due to a personal reason”. As support of the
above, the club provides an internal document where the following is stated:
“Upon the request of the player of the football 1st team Danilo Arboleda Hurtado and
owing to his urgent need for a cash amount as a result of private reasons, kindly
approve and instruct the competent authority to release an amount of USD
100,000.00 (one hundred thousand US Dollars) on urgent basis for the player. Such
amount shall be deducted from the last three month's salary of the player's current
contract without prejudice to the relevant policies and procedures of the club.”
Moreover, the club argued that – by means of its resolution of 1 May 2023 – the
club approved to make an advanced payment in the amount of USD 200,000 in
favour of the player and that would be necessarily deducted from his remaining
salaries. Furthermore, the club rejects the argument of the player that the
payment of USD 200,000 corresponds to the lump sum of USD 200,000 payable
by 31 August 2023 as per the extension contract, as it would not have been – in
any case – yet payable.
-
That even if the club started negotiations with the player’s new club in order to
loan the player to the latter club for the 2023/2024 season, that extent does not
prove that the player was under contract with the club for said season, but that
the club thought of potentially signing the player for said season and transfer the
player on loan, events that did not crystalize.
-
That the medical examination that the player underwent in June 2023 occurred at
a time when the player was still under contract with the club (under the first
contract) and that it cannot be interpreted as a medical examination undertaken
within the context of the conclusion of the extension contract.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12516
-
As for the inclusion of the player in the list for the pre-season 2023/2024, the club
held that – at the moment in time when such list was issued – the parties were
conducting negotiations for the conclusion of the extension contract and that was
the reason why he was included, but – later on and upon the non-conclusion
thereof – the club naturally no longer counted with the player for the pre-season.
16. The above being said, the club explained that, on 18 June 2023, the player’s agent sent a
Whatsapp message to the club with the following content: “Hello friend, for over a week I
sent an email asking for Danilo’s contractual situation, until now I didn’t hear anything about it.
So, Danilo will not flight, because we understand that he is without contract. I am going to send
an email today informing of this situation. Thanks very much.” In this respect, the club held
that this very message corroborates that the player was aware that the extension contract
was never entered into between the parties.
17. Moreover, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player, requesting to be reimbursed
the amount of USD 200,000 paid to the player on 9 May 2023, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
27 November 2023 (date on which the club’s reply and counterclaim is submitted). In this
respect, the club explained that – although the said payment was performed as an
advanced payment for the last 3 salaries of the player for the 2022/2023 season, as already
explained – “due to [an] oversight, Al-Ain’s financial department had paid to the Player all his
financial dues under the 2022 Contract without deducting the aforementioned cash advance
from the Player’s last three salaries. This is evidenced by the proof of payment of the Player’s
salaries under the 2022 Contract.” Thus, invoking the principle that unjust enrichment shall
be prevented, the club requested to be reimbursed the said amount.
18. In its request for relief, the club requested the following:
“1) Reject the present Claim in its entirety.
2) In the alternative, in the unlikelihood that the DRC would deem that the Claimant is entitled
to a compensation, calculate the amount due with due consideration to the [player’s new
income under his new contract].
3) Order the Player Danilo Arboleda Hurtado to repay Al-Ain the cash advance of USD 200,000
plus default interests of 5% per annum to be calculated as from 27 November 2023 until the
date of effective payment.”
c. Player’s replica and reply to counterclaim
19. In his replica, the player stressed – inter alia – the following:
-
That the club does not dispute having provided the extension contract to the player.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12516
-
That the allegations of the club that the player never handed the signed copy of the
extension contract to the club are false, as such event was witnessed by many
individuals: Mr. Mohamed Altahrawi, Mr. Abdulla Ali, Mr. Majid Oweiss, Mr. Khalfan the
CEO of the club. On this note, the player wished to highlight the following: “The [player]
was a player employed, he negotiated terms of the agreement with the club 6 months prior
to the end of his contract (which is the norm in football contracts), signed the said contract
in the offices of the CEO of the club and the contract was left with the club for
countersignature and returning a signed copy thereto. A fact that never took place, and this
is the instance where the [club] started acting in malefide.”
-
That the club – in its email of 10 July 2023 – never contested the allegations of the player
that the payment of USD 200,000 corresponded to the payment foreseen under the
extension contract, nor did the club refer to the alleged resolution of the club whereby
the latter would have agreed on advancing the said payment from his salaries for the
2022/2023 season, which proves that the argumentation of the club is false. In addition,
the player held that the club has not been able to submit any evidence that would
demonstrate that the player requested to be granted any advance payment, for the
sole reason that that was not the case.
-
What is more, the player explained that the argumentation of the club could not
possibly be followed, as the club firstly argues that the amount of USD 200,000 paid via
cheque on 9 May 2023 corresponds to an advanced payment of the salaries of May and
June 2023, but the club duly proceeded with the payment of said salaries in addition to
the aforementioned amount of USD 200,000 which demonstrates that the
consideration of said payment was other not contemplated under the first contract, but
under the extension contract, as it coincides with the first amount thereunder due.
-
The player simply rejected the argument of the club that the extension contract was
only signed by the player on 12 October 2023 and referred to his previous explanations
as to having signed the extension contract on 20 January 2023.
-
As for the medical exam that the player underwent in June 2023, the player argued that
it would simply make no sense that the club undertook to pay flight tickets and a
medical examination for the player on 23 June 2023, when the 2022/2023 season was
finishing, if the club was not aiming at testing the player’s physical conditions for the
player’s performance of the extension contract. In this regard, the player referred to
art. 18 para. 4 of the RSTP and stressed that the validity of a contract cannot in any case
be made subject to the positive result of a medical examination.
20. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player maintained that – as demonstrated with the
payment evidence provided by the club itself – the club duly paid the player’s salaries for
the season 2022/2023 and, in addition, paid the amount of USD 200,000 (due under the
extension contract) which was due to the player as the extension contract was concluded
by the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12516
21. Thus, in the understanding that no amount was paid in excess by the club to the player,
the latter requested the club’s claim be rejected. In view of all of the above, the player
reiterated his previous request for relief.
d. Club’s final comments
22. In its final comments, the club rejected the arguments of the player and reiterated its
previous arguments.
23. In addition, the club held – inter alia – the following:
-
As for the payment of USD 200,000 the club argued that, would it correspond to the
payment alleged by the player, it would have had the consideration of salary and would
have been paid to the player via transfer wire (like every payment performed as salary)
and not by cheque.
-
As to the medical examination carried out in London in June 2023, the club argued that
it was not a medical test to verify if the player was fit to render his professional services
for the 2023/2024 season, but a test to verify if the player was recovered and no longer
needed medical care, that was provided by the club, as the player was injured while
under contract with the club.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. 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 3 November 2023 and
submitted for decision on 13 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.
25. 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, February 2024 edition), 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 Colombian player
and an Emirati club.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12516
26. 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 (February 2024 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 November 2023, the May 2023 edition
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
27. 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
28. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
29. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter
and underscored that the key question in the case at hand is whether the parties concluded
the extension contract. After a careful analysis of the arguments of the parties and the
evidence provided by them within the present proceedings, the DRC noted that the
following uncontested / proven / acknowledged events need to be considered:
-
The parties initiated negotiations aimed at the extension of the player’s contract for the
seasons 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 (with the possibility to also extend it to the season
2025/2026).
-
The club drafted and provided the player with a non-signed version of the extension
contract, which contains most of the essential elements of a contract (identification of
the parties, subject-matter of the contract / contractual obligations, duration,
remuneration and date) but not the signatures of the parties, which is the traditional
means to provide consent to be legally bound by a contract.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12516
30. In this context, the DRC explained that, although neither party has been able to provide
firm evidence that they provided the other party with a signed version of the extension
contract (in this respect, the allegations of the player cannot be followed, as the latter has
not provided evidence of having provided the club with a signed version of the extension
contract on 20 January 2023, the witness statements and the pictures provided not
sufficing to establish that the signed version of the extension contract was sent to the club),
t the following facts, which it qualified as of decisive important in order to determine if the
extension contract was entered into, shall be considered:
-
The fact that the club handed to the player a cheque for the latter to cash the amount of
USD 200,000, that coincides with the first payment due under the extension contract.
-
The fact that – although the club argues that it was an advanced payment concerning the
salaries of May and June 2023 – the club paid said salaries on top of the amount of USD
200,000 (allegedly by mistake) and did not request the player to pay it back until it lodged
its counterclaim in these proceedings.
-
The fact that, in July 2023, when the contract had expired (the only possible agreement in
force being the extension contract) the club announced on its social media that the player
would be joining the pre-season of 2023/2024.
-
The fact that the player travelled to London to undergo a medical test only 7 days prior
to the expiration of the first contract.
-
The fact that, in the player’s email of 9 July 2023, whereby the latter offered the club to
terminate the contract if the club wished to transfer him on loan to another club and
the club, only upon receipt thereof, rejected being contractually engaged with the
player without making any reference to the amount of USD 200,000 allegedly overpaid
by mistake nor to the potential loan of the player to a third club, as brought forward by
the player.
31. Considering all the above-mentioned actions and omissions undertaken by the parties, the
DRC concluded that the parties accepted to be contractually engaged, as stated in the
extension contract.
32. Therefore, having determined that the parties concluded the extension contract and that
the club – by means of its email of 10 July 2023 – unilaterally decided and so informed the
player that they were no longer contractually engaged beyond 30 June 2023, the Chamber
determined that the club did terminate the contract without just cause on said date.
33. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive a
compensation for breach of contract from the club.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12516
34. On this note, the DRC wished to highlight that – as per the allegations and the request for
relief of the player – the latter claims being entitled to a compensation for breach of
contract that would comprehend, as residual value, the remuneration payable for the
seasons 2023/2024, 2024/2025 and 2025/2026. In this respect, continued the Chamber,
considering that the extension contract only foresaw the possibility that the club (and not
the player) could extend the duration of the contract for the season 2025/2026, the DRC
decided that said extension option shall be disregarded, as not considered lawful due to
its lack of reciprocity and, consequently, the extension contract can only be interpreted as
lasting until 30 June 2025, i.e. the end of the 2024/2025 season in UAE.
35. The DRC clarified that, insofar as no outstanding remuneration has been requested, the
only financial consequences to address are those pertaining to the compensation for
breach of contract due to the player by the club.
36. As for the club’s counterclaim, considering that the argument of the club that it overpaid
the amount of USD 200,000 to the player as an oversight is rejected, insofar as it
corresponded to the first payment payable as per the extension contract, the DRC decided
that the counterclaim of the club shall be rejected.
ii. Consequences
37. 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/Counter-Claimant.
38. In this context, 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.
39. 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.
40. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12516
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.
41. 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 2,700,000 (i.e. USD 1,300,000 which is the total fixed
remuneration for the season 2023/2024 and USD 1,400,000 which is the total fixed
remuneration for the season 2024/2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
42. 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.
43. Indeed, the player found employment with the Qatari club, Al Ahli FC, the new contract
being valid as from 14 July 2023 until 30 June 2024 and whereby the player is entitled to
a total fixed remuneration of USD 958,333 during the whole term of the contract, as he
is entitled to 11.5 salaries of USD 83,333 each.
44. 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
was not prematurely terminated due to overdue payables, as it was not executed.
Therefore, the DRC decided not to award any additional compensation to the player.
45. At this point, the Chamber explained that the amount of USD 200,000 already paid by the
club to the player shall also mitigate the overall compensation for breach of contract due
to the player.
46. 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 1,541,667 to the player (i.e. USD 2,700,000 minus USD 958,333 minus USD 200,000),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter. 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 10 July 2023 (date on which
the club terminated the contract without just cause) until the date of effective payment.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-12516
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent/CounterClaimant must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which,
at the request of the Claimant/Counter-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 immediately effective on the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
50. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall make full payment (including all applicable
interest) to the bank account provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the Bank
Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
51. 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.
d. Costs
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-12516
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Danilo Arboleda Hurtado, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Al Ain, must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
the following amount(s):
- USD 1,541,667 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10
July 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-12516
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
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. 16