Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4320
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 February 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Amer Bekic
COMPOSITION:
HENDEL Clifford J. (USA/France), Chairperson
DE MEDINILLA Gonzalo (Spain), member
GUTIERREZ Jorge (Costa Rica), member
CLAIMANT:
Amer Bekic, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by Çağlar Akoğlu
RESPONDENT:
Pusamania Borneo FC, Indonesia
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
Page 2
REF FPSD-4320
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 March 2021, the Bosnian player Amer Bekic (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant)
and the Indonesian club Pusamania Borneo FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract valid as from the same date until 28 February 2023
(hereinafter: the contract).
2.
Under the contract, the player was entitled to the global yearly remuneration of USD 80,000
net and benefits, payable as follows:
a. USD 8,000 as a sign-on fee;
b. USD 72,000 in 11 equal instalments of USD 6,545.45 payable at the latest on
the 28th day of each month for 11 months;
c. Personal vehicle;
d. A house which amenities costs would be charged on the player;
e. “economy class round trip tickets from Indonesia to Bosnia Herzegovina”;
f. Visa and work permit.
3.
Clause 18 of the contract reads as follows: “Any disagreement, dispute, lawsuit,
interpretation of terms of this contract, which cannot be resolved by deliberation to reach
consensus, shall and must be submitted to, to be examined and decided by National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Indonesia, whose decision is binding on the conflicting parties
as a final and binding decision.”
4.
On 9 August 2021, the player put the club in default of payment of his salaries of June and
July 2021 amounting to USD 13,090.90. The player referred to articles 12bis, 14 and 14bis
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and argued that the club
was also trying to force the player to terminate the contract by indicating that he should be
loaned. The player denounced that the player was put in a separate training schedule without
adequate coaching, and also complained that he still did not have a proper visa to stay in
Indonesia. The player awarded the club 15 days to cure its default.
5.
On 24 August 2021, the club replied to the player’s letter and indicated that it was just
“discussing” the player’s future since the foreign quota of 3 players had already been filled.
The club indicated that it had not paid the player’s salary on account of lack of banking
details. Lastly, the club confirmed that the coach assigned to the player was adequate under
the local regulations.
6.
On 4 September 2021, the player addressed a second notice to the club and in reply to its
previous letter. The player reiterated his position and demanded that the club’s contractual
violations ceased. He argued that the registration issue had been created by the club alone.
The player additionally reiterated that he was to train with the first squad. The player
moreover confirmed that he received on 27 August 2021 the salaries of June and July as
requested in his previous notice, and that as a token of good faith he decided not to terminate
Page 3
REF FPSD-4320
the contract in spite of his entitlement to do so. Lastly, the player requested the club (a) to
pay for the player’s accommodation in a hotel, as the club had not provided him with a house,
(b) to provide him with his visa, and (c) to pay his salary of August 2021 which was late. The
player awarded the club 7 days to cure its default.
7.
On 7 September 2021, the hotel where the player was staying informed him that club had
ceased to pay the fees and that he should pay the fees himself as from that moment.
8.
On 15 September 2021, the player sent a third default notice to the club, reiterating his
previous requests and granting a final deadline of 3 days for the club to comply. The player
also complained about the fact that he now had to pay from the hotel fees his own pocket.
9.
On 18 September 2021, the club replied to the player and stated that it was not in default.
The club in general terms reiterated its previous position regarding training and payment
difficulties via bank transfer. As to the accommodation, the club confirmed that it would
settle any hotel fees and reimburse the player. As to the work visa, the club argued that it
was being processed.
10. On 30 September 2021, the club wrote to the player and advised him that the budget
established regarding accommodation for the player, allegedly agreed between the club, the
player and the hotel, was about to be exceeded, and availed itself to discuss options for the
player’s housing for the remaining period of his contract.
11. On 1 October 2021, the player sent a fourth default notice to the club, reiterating his previous
requests and granting a final deadline of 3 days for the club to comply.
12. On the same date, the club replied and denied being in default of the contract. The club
argued that the registration situation had been acknowledged by the player and that the
regulations of the Indonesian FA forbade his registration. The club also argued that the player
did not accept any of the options presented to him, being sent on loan or terminating the
contract.
13. On 6 October 2021, the player opposed the club’s position, reiterated his own and requested
the club to immediately cease the breaches of the contract.
14. On 8 October 2021, the club replied and reiterated its previous position. The club also
informed the player that his work visa had been granted.
15. On 11 October the player sent his sixth notice to the club with a warning that it would be the
last before terminating the contract. The player once again reiterated his position and
highlighted that he could not train with the first team for four months. The player granted 3
days for the club to comply.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4320
16. On the same date, the club responded and argued that the player was called to play with the
first team again, and that no breach was in place.
17. On 15 October 2021, the player terminated the contract, following which he remained
unemployed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 17 November 2021, 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. According to the Claimant, he had just cause to terminate the contract and argued that the
Respondent repeatedly breached the contract due to the following reasons:
a. The club put the player training in separate for four months;
b. It never registered the player hindering him from an opportunity to compete
with his fellow teammates;
c. The club did not adopt the necessary measures to issue the player’s visa, which
was issued only on 27 September 2021 after the player’s much insistence.
20. The player also pointed out that the club did not pay him his salary of September 2021
amounting to USD 6,545.45. He also seeks reimbursement of costs incurred with
accommodation (USD 301.73) and flight ticket home (USD 1.095.10), together with interest
as from the due date until the date of effective payment.
21. The player equally seeks payment of compensation for breach of contract amounting to USD
119,272.70 as residual value of the contract together with interests as from the date of
termination until the date of effective payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
22. The Respondent filed a reply and a subsidiary counterclaim against the player.
23. Upon assessing the counterclaim, the FIFA general secretariat asked the Respondent to
complete its petition by filing a proper copy of the Bank Account Registration Form with a
bank account registered to the club’s name, under penalty of the counterclaim being
considered withdrawn, in line with article 18 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Football Tribunal (hereinafter: Procedural Rules).
24. The Respondent however did not comply with the instruction and, as such, the counterclaim
was deemed withdrawn by the FIFA general secretariat. The Respondent’s position is
summarized in continuation.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4320
25. The Respondent firstly objected to the jurisdiction of FIFA to hear the dispute. In doing so, it
referred to clause 18 of the contract, and argued that the Nation Dispute Resolution Chamber
of Indonesia is competent to adjudicate on the matter.
26. Subsequently, the club referred to clause 21 of the contract and argued that Indonesian Law
and not the FIFA regulations shall apply, and the laws, circulars and regulations issued in
Indonesia shall be considered in line with art. 3 of the Procedural Rules.
27. As to the merits of the case, the Respondent argued that the player did not have just cause
to terminate the contract and that as such his claim is to be rejected. The club held that it did
not breach the contract.
28. To this end, the club argued that as informed to the Claimant via its letters, in the issue of
the registration the club was bound by the regulations of the Indonesian FA, which allowed
for only 4 foreign players to be registered while the club had 5 players as such in its roster.
The club submitted that the player was aware of this situation and never opposed it, and that
when the club proposed a loan to the player, he refused it.
29. The Respondent also argued that the player was training with the reserve squad, not alone,
and with an assistant coach duly licensed with an Asian Football Confederation (AFC) license
B, which is allowed under the Indonesian FA regulations.
30. As to the visa issue, the club confirmed that on 8 October 2021 it informed the player of his
visa and added that by then the player had been invited to play with the first team.
31. The Respondent argued that it fully complied with its contractual obligations and that under
art. 17 of the FIFA RSTP the player shall pay compensation, amounting to the residual value
of the contract of USD 119,272.70.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. 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 17 November 2021 and submitted for
decision on 24 February 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October
2021 edition of the Procedural Rules, their aforementioned is applicable to the matter at
hand.
33. 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
Page 6
REF FPSD-4320
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Bosnian
player and an Indonesian club.
34. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies in favour of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of Indonesia
(hereinafter: the NDRC of Indonesia), alleging that the latter is competent to deal with any
disputes deriving from the relevant employment contract, in accordance with its clause 18.
35. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle, competent
to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international
dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be
decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level
within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such
arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining
agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must
guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and
clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute
Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
36. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to provide any documentary
evidence which could prove that the national arbitration bodies of the Football Federation of
Indonesia meet the requirements established in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players, detailed in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the
NDRC Regulations. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber found in noteworthy that in
accordance with the cited clause 18 of the contract, it would appear that no right to appeal
was possible within the framework of the NDRC of Indonesia. The Chamber highlighted that
the right of review of a decision by way of an appeal is an intrinsic right to due process of
law ensuring fair proceedings, as outlined in FIFA Circular 1010. On that basis, the Chamber
was also not comforted to establish that the criteria outlined in such circular was met by the
NDRC of Indonesia – moreover because no evidence as to its functioning was presented by
the Respondent.
37. On account of the above, and referring to the principle of burden of proof contained in art.
13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection
towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter must be rejected, and FIFA
is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present matter
as to the substance.
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 (August 2021 edition), and
Page 7
REF FPSD-4320
considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 November 2021, the August 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
39. At this point, the Chamber noted that the Respondent has raised the issue of the applicability
of Indonesian law. The DRC confirmed that when adjudicating on a dispute, FIFA’s regulations
prevail over any national law chosen by the parties. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised
that the main objective of the FIFA regulations is to create a standard set of rules to which all
the actors within the football community are subject to and can rely on. This objective would
not be achievable if the DRC would have to apply the national law of a specific party on every
dispute brought to it. It is in the interest of football that the football environment regulations
are based on uniform criteria rather than on provisions of national law that may vary
considerable from country to country.
40. Therefore, the DRC confirmed that it is not appropriate to apply the principles of a particular
national law to the matter at hand but rather the Regulations, general principles of law and,
where existing, the Football Tribunal’s well-established jurisprudence.
b. Burden of proof
41. 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
42. 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
43. Before entering into the substance of the dispute however, the Chamber did not fail to notice
that the Respondent had at first filed a subsidiary counterclaim (i.e. should the DRC deem
itself competent) against the Claimant. However, the Chamber noted that such counterclaim
was correctly deemed withdrawn by the FIFA general secretariat on the basis of art. 18 par.
2 of the Procedural Rules.
Page 8
REF FPSD-4320
44. The Chamber confirmed that the FIFA general secretariat acted correctly in this regard. It
pointed out that in accordance with art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, “[t]he
respondent(s) may submit a counterclaim with their response to the claim. A counterclaim
shall have the same form as a claim and shall be submitted within the same time limit as that
for the response to the claim”. The Chamber also highlighted that under art. 21 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules, where a party has already been notified of an existing case – as it is in the
matter at hand – the new claim (or counterclaim) must have been submitted within the same
time limit as that for the response to the claim in the existing case in order to be considered.
45. The rules are therefore clear in the Chamber’s view: in a matter where a party has already
been summoned to the proceedings, any counterclaim (or parallel claim) must be filed within
the time limit granted, otherwise it will be deemed late and the party in question will be
precluded from submitting it.
46. The mandatory requirements for a claim – and any counterclaim for that matter – are
determined under art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules. One of such requirements are the
details of the (counter) claimant’s bank account, registered to its name, inserted in a filledout, signed, and dated version of the Bank Account Registration Form.
47. The Respondent however, with its reply and counterclaim, submitted a Bank Account
Registration Form with bank details registered to a third party, following which it was asked
by the FIFA general secretariat to rectify its documentation in accordance with art. 18 par. 2
of the Procedural Rules. The wording of such rule is reproduced in continuation for the sake
of completeness: “[t]he FIFA general secretariat will assess whether these requirements are
met. If the claim is incomplete, the FIFA general secretariat will inform the claimant and
request rectification. If the claim is not rectified within the time limit given, it is deemed to be
withdrawn and will need to be resubmitted”.
48. The Chamber noticed that in its letter to the Respondent, the FIFA general secretariat
expressly advised the club that should rectification not be made in a timely fashion, the
counterclaim would be deemed withdrawn and the submission-phase of the matter would
be closed in line with art. 23 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules.
49. Within the time limited granted however, the Respondent sent the same Bank Account
Registration Form, still regarding banking details of a third party – as confessed by the club
in its letter. In line with the cited articles under the Procedural Rules therefore, the
counterclaim of the club was deemed withdrawn as it was not completed.
50. As a final remark to this end, the Chamber wished to highlight that unlike for claims, which
may be re-submitted (and subject to a new analysis afresh of their admissibility by the FIFA
general secretariat), counterclaims must be filed within the same time limit for the response
(or any extension or additional time thereto), under penalty of preclusion of the concerned
party’s right to file it.
Page 9
REF FPSD-4320
51. The Chamber confirmed therefore that since the Respondent failed to adequately complete
its counterclaim within the relevant time limit, the same cannot be considered by the DRC as
it was deemed withdrawn. Consequently, the Chamber shall deal with the only claim on file,
the one put forward by the Claimant, and the corresponding statement of defence of the
club (which was timely filed).
52. 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 if the player had just cause or not
to terminate the contract.
53. On one side, the player argued that the club forced him to terminate the contract and raised
article 14 of the Regulations in support of his position. More in particular, the player argued
that the club repeatedly breached the contract by failing to pay his remuneration on time, by
not registering him to play, by not issuing his visa in a timely fashion, and lastly by putting
him to train for a prolonged period with the club’s second squad.
54. The club on the other hand argued that it never breached the contract, that the visa was
eventually issued, and that the club was bound by the regulations in Indonesia which only
allowed for four foreign players to be registered. The club has also submitted that because of
the choice of law included in the contract, the Regulations cannot apply.
55. The Chamber confirmed again that the defence of the club in regard to the application of
Indonesian law (or regulations) cannot be upheld as the claim shall be assed under the FIFA
regulations and the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal.
56. In this context, the Chamber first reminded the parties that, in line with the contents of art.
18 par. 4 of the Regulations, as well as the jurisprudence of FIFA, the validity (or performance)
of an employment contract cannot be made conditional upon the execution of
(administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited to, the registration procedure in
connection with the international transfer of a player, which are of the sole responsibility of
a club and upon which a player has no influence. As the club is supposedly interested in
acquiring the rights of the player and in benefiting from his services, it is also expected to act
accordingly and execute the administrative formalities in view of obtaining, for instance, the
player’s ITC and his subsequent registration with the engaging FA. Consequently, the
registration or not of the contract is irrelevant in determining if the contract was a valid and
binding document, and whether its execution could be subjected to the registration of the
player in light of the alleged foreign quota argued by the club.
57. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s objection and confirmed
that the contract was valid and biding between the parties.
58. The Chamber deemed it appropriate to remind the parties that only a breach or misconduct
which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when
there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the
Page 10
REF FPSD-4320
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order to ensure the fulfilment
of the contractual duties by the counterparty, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract
can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
59. At the same time, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations:
“Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or change
the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a player or a club) to terminate the
contract with just cause”.
60. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the principle of burden of proof, the Chamber noted
that the behaviour of the club, consisting of the following, is clearly and deliberately abusive:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
The player was training for 4 months with the reserve team, something that the club
does not deny, and there is no evidence on file that the player was ever reintegrated
(or invited back) to the first team;
The club took months to issue the player’s visa and did so only after much insistence
form the player;
The player’s remuneration was constantly paid late;
The player had to pay for accommodation in spite of his contractual right to have this
provided to him by the club;
The club admittedly never registered the player.
61. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the evidence provided by the player, showing that
he consistently and in good faith tried to contact the club and be allowed to comply with the
terms of the employment contract. In this context, the Chamber concluded that the
circumstances of the present case are in line with art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations and
therefore the player had a just cause to terminate the contract, due to the abusive conduct
of the club.
62. The Chamber was furthermore comforted with its decision considering the contents of the
Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to which it adhered:
“As previously mentioned, a club – as an employer – has the duty to protect the personality
rights of the player – as an employee. The career development of a footballer may be
prejudiced as a result of inactivity and thus, the club has a duty to allow its players to engage
in the activity for which they have been in principle employed and are qualified for. The DRC
has already confirmed that “among a player’s fundamental rights under an employment
contract, is not only his right to a timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to
access training and to be given the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the
team’s official matches” and that “by “de-registering” a player, even for a limited time period,
a club is effectively barring, in an absolute manner, the potential access of a player to
competition and, as such, is violating one of his fundamental rights as a football player” and
Page 11
REF FPSD-4320
that therefore “the de-registration of a player could in principle constitute a breach of contract
since it de facto prevents a player from being eligible to play for his club”.
63. The club seriously and repeatedly breached the contract and as such is to be held liable for
its termination and the consequences thereto.
ii. Consequences
64. 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.
65. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to one salary under
the contract, as well as reimbursements for the expenses incurred. The DRC confirmed that
these are accompanied by the relevant evidence and have a contractual basis.
66. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which
were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, namely:
-
USD 6,545.45 as salary of September 2021;
USD 301.73 as hotel expenses;
USD 1,095.10 as flight expenses.
67. 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 (a) as from their due dates until the date of effective
payment on the salary and (b) as of the date of claim until the date of effective payment on
the reimbursements, since the evidence is not precise enough in this regard to establish when
the expenses were incurred and because payments for the hotel were made in local currency.
68. 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.
69. 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-4320
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.
70. 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.
71. 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, and noted that the parties do not
dispute that the residual value of the contract amounted to USD 119,272.70. Consequently,
the Chamber concluded that this amount serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
72. 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.
73. The player did not find new employment. Therefore, no mitigation exists in the case at hand
and as a consequence no additional compensation can be granted to the player on the basis
of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations.
74. 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
119,272.70, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
75. 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 the date of claim until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
76. 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
Page 13
REF FPSD-4320
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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-4320
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Amer Bekic, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Pusamania Borneo FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
- USD 6,545.45 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 September
2021 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 301.73 as reimbursement of accommodation expenses plus 5% interest p.a. as from
17 November 2021 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 1,095.10 as reimbursement of travel expenses plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17
November 2021 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 119,272.50 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 17 November 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are 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 (August 2021
edition), 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.
Page 15
REF FPSD-4320
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-4320
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).
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 17