Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01816
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 March 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Borja Valle Balonga
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay and Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
Borja Valle Balonga, Spain
Represented by Tayba Jawad
RESPONDENT:
SC Dinamo 1948, Romania
Page 2 of 10
REF 20-01816
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 6 September 2020, the Spanish player, Borja Valle Balonga (hereinafter: player or Claimant)
and the Romanian club, SC Dinamo 1948 (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of 6 September 2020 until 30 June
2022.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following
monthly salaries:
- EUR 32,500 between September 2020 and June 2021;
- EUR 27,083 between July 2021 and June 2022.
3.
According to the contract, the monthly salaries are payable “till no later than the 15 day of the
month following the one wherefore payment is due”.
4.
On 16 November 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
EUR 65,000, corresponding to his salaries of September and October 2020, within 15 days.
5.
On 3 December 2020, the Claimant terminated the contract with the Respondent referring to
Art. 14bis of the RSTP, due to its failure to comply with its financial obligations.
6.
On 5 December 2020, the Respondent replied to the Claimant stating that the club is facing
financial difficulties and that it requests the player to “suspend until December 22nd the term
of payment” indicated in his letter since the club was negotiating an advance payment in
relation to TV rights.
7.
According to information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 30 December
2020, the player signed an employment contract with the Spanish club, Real Oviedo, valid as
from 20 December 2020 until 30 June 2022, including the following monthly remuneration:
- EUR 25,000 between January 2021 and June 2021;
- EUR 29,000 between July 2021 until June 2022.
8.
On 14 December 2020, the player lodged a claim for breach of contract against the Respondent
in front of FIFA and requested the following monies:
- EUR 97,500 as outstanding remuneration plus interest of 8% p.a. as of the respective
due dates;
- EUR 552,496 as compensation plus interest of 8% p.a. as of “the date the decision is
rendered”;
- EUR 5,000 as contribution to the player’s legal costs.
9.
In his claim, the player referred to art. 14bis RSTP and maintained that he had just cause to
terminate the contract on 3 December 2020 as the Respondent failed to react to his default
notice.
Page 3 of 10
REF 20-01816
10. He further argued that the club had outstanding dues in the amount of EUR 97,500 (3 monthly
salaries, September until November 2020) to him at the moment of termination.
11. Moreover, he held being entitled to compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the
residual value of the contract, which amounts to EUR 552,496 (7x EUR 32,500, starting
December 2020 as well as 12x EUR 27,083).
12. The Respondent failed to submit its reply to the claim within the given time-limit and submitted
comments after the investigation phase was already closed.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred as DRC or Chamber)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber
took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 December 2020. Consequently,
the DRC concluded that the June 2020 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 February 2021), 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 and a club.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition February 2021), and considering that
the present claim was lodged on 14 December 2020, the October 2020 edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
4.
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.
5.
First of all, the members of the Chamber recalled that, on 6 September 2020, the parties
concluded a contract, valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2022.
Page 4 of 10
REF 20-01816
6.
In continuation, the DRC noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent
maintaining that he had terminated the contract with just cause on 3 December 2020 since the
club failed to remit remuneration in the total amount of EUR 65,000, corresponding to two
monthly salaries. Consequently, the Claimant asks to be awarded his outstanding dues as well
as the payment of compensation for breach of the employment contract.
7.
Subsequently, the DRC observed that the Respondent submitted its reply to the claim after
notification of the closure of the investigation of the matter at hand. As a result, in line with art.
9 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this regard,
the members of the DRC decided not to take into account the reply of the Respondent and
established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, they shall take a
decision upon the basis of those documents on file that were provided prior to the closure of
the investigation-phase, in casu, upon the statements and documents presented by the
Claimant.
8.
Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that the central issue in the matter at stake was to
determine as to whether the contract was terminated by the Claimant with or without just
cause and to decide on the consequences thereof.
9.
With the above in mind, 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.
10. Subsequently, the DRC recalled, that the Claimant put the club in default on 16 November
2020, giving the Respondent 15 days to remedy its default, before the Claimant terminated the
contract on 3 December 2020 by means of a letter, referring to outstanding remuneration and
art. 14bis of the Regulations.
11. Consequently, considering that it remained undisputed that the Respondent had thus been in
breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, and in accordance with art. 14bis of
the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate
the employment contract on 3 December 2020 and that, as a result, the Respondent is to be
held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant.
12. Subsequently, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of the employment
contract with just cause by the Claimant in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
the Chamber held that it, in general, had to address the issue of unpaid remuneration at the
moment when the contract was terminated by the Claimant.
13. Bearing in mind the considerations above, and in accordance with the general legal principle
of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber established that the Claimant is entitled to EUR 97,500,
corresponding to the salaries between September and November 2020.
Page 5 of 10
REF 20-01816
14. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the
Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the respective due dates and as of the day after
the termination for the salary of November 2020..
15. Moreover, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided
that the Claimant is entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract from the
Respondent.
16. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of 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 Claimant 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.
17. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to
whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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.
18. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision
provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be
taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach
has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific
circumstances of the respective matter.
19. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other
benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which
criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber
deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows
the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in
the calculation of the amount of compensation.
Page 6 of 10
REF 20-01816
20. 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 the date of
termination with just cause by the Claimant until its natural expiration, bearing in mind that he
would have received in total EUR 552,496 as remuneration for the period as from December
2020 until June 2022. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 552,496
serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the case at hand.
21. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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,
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. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant indeed found new employment with the
Spanish club, Real Oviedo for the period of January 2021 until 30 June 2022 , including a total
remuneration of EUR 498,000, which shall be deducted, leading to a mitigated compensation
in the amount of EUR 54,496.
23. Subsequently, the DRC turned its attention to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an additional compensation of three monthly salaries, subject
to the early termination of the contract being due to overdue payables. In case of egregious
circumstances, the additional compensation may be increased up to a maximum of six monthly
salaries, whereby the overall compensation may never exceed the residual value of the
prematurely terminated contract.
24. With the above in mind, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant additional compensation
corresponding to three monthly salaries, i.e. EUR 97,500, in accordance with the abovementioned provision.
25. Consequently, on account of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to
partially accept the Claimant’s claim and that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR
151,996 as compensation for breach of contract to the Claimant, which is considered by the
Chamber to be a fair and reasonable amount.
26. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the
Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim, i.e. 14 December 2020, until
the date of effective payment.
27. The DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.
Page 7 of 10
REF 20-01816
28. 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.
29. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has
competence to impose a sanction on the Respondent. More in particular, the DRC pointed out
that, against clubs, the sanction shall consist in a ban 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.
30. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent
does not pay the amount 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.
31. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction 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.
Page 8 of 10
REF 20-01816
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Borja Valle Balonga, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, SC Dinamo 1948, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 32,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 32,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 November 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 32,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 December 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 151,996 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14
December 2020 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent 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. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is 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 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9 of 10
REF 20-01816
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 10 of 10