Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6322
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 January 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player EMMANUEL
OKYERE BOATENG
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Jorge Gutiérrez (Costa Rica), member
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member
CLAIMANT:
Emmanuel Okyere Boateng, Ghana
Represented by Daniel Muñoz Sierra
RESPONDENT:
Dalian Professional FC, China PR
Page 2
REF FPSD-6322
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 March 2019, the Ghanaian player, Emmanuel Okyere Boateng, Ghana (hereinafter:
the player or the Claimant) and the Chinese club, Dalian Professional FC (hereinafter: the
club or the Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid
as from 3 March 2019 until 31 December 2022. According to the information displayed in
the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the seasons in China PR follow the calendar year.
2.
In accordance with clause 5 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player, inter
alia, the following remuneration:
-
EUR 2,680,000 gross or EUR 1,500,000 net as yearly salary for the year 2019;
EUR 2,680,000 gross or EUR 1,600,000 net as yearly salary for the year 2020 (there is
no typo in the conversion despite the difference with the sentence above);
EUR 3,050,000 gross or EUR 1,700,000 net as yearly salary for the year 2021;
EUR 3,230,000 gross or EUR 1,800,000 net as yearly salary for the year 2022;
EUR 100,000 net as bonus, should the player score 10 goals during a season (payable
within the 30 days that follow the end of the relevant season);
EUR 20,000 net as bonus for every goal scored after 10 goals during a season (payable
within the 30 days that follow the end of the relevant season).
3.
According to clause 7 para. 3 of the contract, the club undertook to provide the player
with 2 flight tickets (return tickets) Dalian – Ghana – Dalian in business class per season.
4.
Clause 8 para. 2 of the contract reads as follows: “[The club] is obliged to provide [the
player’s] Personal Income Tax Certificate and any other relevant documents [the player]
requires to organize his financial operations and duties”.
5.
Clause 9 of the contract states that, should the club breach the contract, the club would
compensate the player in accordance with the FIFA Regulations.
6.
In accordance with clause 10 para. 4 sub para. 1, the parties agreed that the player would
be entitled to terminate the contract with just cause should the club be in default of
payment of 3 salaries.
7.
In the 2019/2020 season, the player scored 11 goals for the club.
8.
In February 2022, the player arrived in Spain to get medical treatment for his injury.
9.
On 25 February 2022, the club requested the player to provide information relating to his
travel to Spain.
Page 3
REF FPSD-6322
10. On 27 February 2022, the player replied thereto, explaining that he was getting medical
treatment in Spain to recover from his injury and requested the club to provide him “asap
[with] the flight options available so [he] can fly back to Dalian and continue his recovery
there in his Club and with his team”.
11. By means of its correspondence of 8 April 2022, the club urged the player to return to
China and resume his contractual obligations by 1 May 2022 and, on 15 April 2022, the
player requested the club to provide him with the corresponding flight tickets to travel to
China before May 2022; however, to no avail.
12. By means of his letter of 30 April 2022, the player informed the club that, since the club
had not provided him with flight tickets, the player would buy them himself but would
need the club to reimburse him the price of the tickets as per clause 7.3 of the contract;
and put the club in default of payment in the amount of EUR 1,030,833 corresponding to
the salaries of April 2020, December 2021, January 2022, February 2022, March 2022 and
April 2022, thereby granting the club a deadline of 15 days to remedy the default.
13. Thereafter, on 3 May 2022, the player informed the club that there were no direct flights
to travel from Ghana to Dalian and suggested renting a private flight and pay half of the
cost; however, to no avail.
14. By means of his correspondence of 11 May 2022, the player reminded the club that it
should pay his outstanding remuneration by 15 May 2022, requested the club – again –
to provide him with the flight ticket to travel to Dalian from Ghana and requested the club
to clarify his employment situation in view of some media reports that stated that the
club had terminated the contract and that the player was a free agent; however, to no
avail (see Exhibit 13).
15. By means of his letter dated 16 May 2022, the player granted the club another deadline
of 15 days to remedy its default and provide him with the corresponding flight ticket and
with his tax certificates in connection with the remuneration paid by the club to the player.
16. On 21 May 2022, the player informed the club that, while he was on course to board the
flight from his layover at Kenya, the Chinese Embassy rejected the issuance of health code
to the Player despite the negative Covid-19 test results of the player and the latter
requested the Club to assist him in the boarding of the flight to China, to no avail.
17. Subsequently, by means of his letter dated 1 June 2022, the player unilaterally terminated
the contract. On 16 August 2022, the player signed a new contract with the Portuguese
club, Rio Ave FC (hereinafter: the new club), valid as from the date of its signature until 30
June 2024. According to clause 3 of the new contract, the player is entitled to a monthly
salary of EUR 20,000, i.e. during the overlapping period (16.08.22 – 31.12.2022), the player
managed to mitigate his damages in the amount of EUR 90,000 (20,000*4.5 = 90,000).
Page 4
REF FPSD-6322
II. Proceedings before FIFA
a. Position of the Claimant
18. On 10 June 2022, the player lodged a claim against the club before the Football Tribunal,
requesting to be awarded outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract in the total amount of EUR 4,768,179, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective
due dates, broken down by the Claimant as follows:
Outstanding remuneration: EUR 2,076,513 gross
-
EUR 1,823,333 gross corresponding to the salaries of April 2020 (EUR 223,333),
December 2021 (EUR 254,259), January 2022 (EUR 269,167), February 2022 (EUR
269,167), March 2022 (EUR 269,167), April 2022 (EUR 269,167) and May 2022 (EUR
269,167).
-
EUR 210,000 gross as bonus for having scored 11 goals for the club during the season
2020;
-
EUR 43,180 as reimbursement of flight tickets’ expenses incurred on the following
dates (Exhibits 10 and 15):
-
EUR 7,682 on 14 January 2020;
-
EUR 5,096 on 27 January 2020;
-
EUR 4,249 on 4 November 2020;
-
EUR 9,392 on 1 April 2021;
-
EUR 16,762 on 16 May 2022 (the supporting document associated with this
payment is a scanned document of Kenya Airways where the name of the
player is indicated along with a payment in cash of 133,356 in a currency that
is not indicated; no further information is displayed in the document).
Compensation for breach of contract: EUR 2,691,666 gross
-
EUR 1,884,166 gross corresponding to the residual value of the contract, i.e. the
salaries payable between June and December 2022 (i.e. 269,166*7 = 1,884,166);
-
EUR 807,500 gross as compensation for the specificity of the sport,
corresponding to 3 salaries of EUR 269,166.
Page 5
REF FPSD-6322
19. In addition to the above, the Claimant requested to be provided his personal income tax
certificates for the period he was under the contract with the club.
20. In his claim, the player stressed that, without any reason whatsoever, the club failed to
pay the player’s salaries of April 2020, December 2021, January 2022, February 2022 and
March 2022, as well as the bonuses contractually due to the player.
21. In this respect, the player explained that the club failed to pay the aforementioned
overdue remuneration to the player despite several reminders and despite being
provided with “abundant time”.
22. In particular, the Claimant held that the club failed to pay the aforementioned monthly
salaries, the overdue bonus, the reimbursement of the amounts in relation to the flight
tickets purchased by the player and also failed to provide him with the flight tickets and
income tax certificates.
23. As to the bonus requested, the player held that, in the 2019/2020 season, the player
scored 11 goals for the club, thereby triggering the payment of bonus as per clause 5.2 of
the contract.
24. In connection with his flight to Spain, at the beginning of 2022, the player explained that
“in accordance with the advice of the Club´s doctor and permission of the Club, the Player
arrived in Spain to get medical treatment for his injury”.
25. In view of the above, the player argued that he had no alternative but to terminate the
contract. In this regard, the Claimant argued having terminated the contract with just
cause cf. art. 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
b. Position of the Respondent
26. In its reply, the club firstly stated that, due to the adverse financial consequences of Covid19, the club “withdrew” the salaries of its employees, including the player, action that the
club deemed as compliant with the FIFA Guidelines on Covid-19.
27. In continuation, the club acknowledged not having paid the player’s salaries of December
2021, January, February, March, April and May 2022 and held that this lack of payment
was motivated by the club’s relegation from the first league at the end of the 2021 season
and the fact that one of its sponsors stopped providing financial aid to the club.
28. In addition, the club maintained that, thereafter – even though the club promoted again
to the first league – the withdrawal of other Chinese clubs from the league jeopardized
Page 6
REF FPSD-6322
Chinese football. The Respondent argues that this event shall be considered as an event
of force majeure.
29. As to the merits, the Respondent requested the claim of the Claimant be rejected in view
of the club’s real impossibility to respect its contractual obligations and, subsidiary,
argued that, should the contract’s termination be considered as made with just cause, the
player’s compensation shall be mitigated in accordance with his new income during the
overlapping period.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
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 10 June 2022 and submitted
for decision on 26 January 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October
2022 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 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 July 2022 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
Ghanaian player and a Chinese club.
3.
Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber observed that, although the competence of FIFA
is not being disputed by the parties, the following observations shall be made in relation
to the statute of limitations: A.) considering that the present claim has been lodged on 10
June 2022, the Claimant’s claim to be awarded the salary of April 2020 (EUR 223,333),
payable by the end of the said month, is time-barred cf. art. 23 para. 3 Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players and this part of the petita is, therefore, inadmissible; 2.) In
this line, the Chamber determined that the request of the Claimant pertaining to the
reimbursement of the flight tickets purchased in January 2020 is time-barred cf. art. 23
para. 3 of the said Regulations, insofar as the Chamber considered that the date of
purchase constitutes the date triggering the event giving rise to the dispute and, since
more than 2 years would have elapsed since then, the said petitum is also inadmissible.
4.
The above being said, the Chamber underscored that the claim of the Claimant is partially
inadmissible (the petita mentioned the previous paragraph) and that the DRC would only
Page 7
REF FPSD-6322
entertain the remainder of the Claimant’s petita, insofar as those are admissible and the
Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear them.
5.
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 (July 2022 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 June 2022, the March 2022 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
6.
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
7.
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
8.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter and recalled that the Claimant is requesting to be awarded outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR
4,768,179, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due dates, as well as to be provided
his Personal Income Tax Certificates.
9.
Moreover, the Chamber noted that, in his claim, the Claimant argues having terminated
the contract with just cause cf. art. 14bis of the Regulations on 1 June 2022 in view of the
fact that the club failed to pay more than 3 monthly salaries (cf. clause 10 para. 4 sub
para. 1 of the contract).
10. Furthermore, the DRC observed that, on its part, the Respondent acknowledged not
having paid the salaries requested by the Claimant as outstanding but held that it was
due to the financial crisis the club underwent upon the Covid-19 outbreak and
Page 8
REF FPSD-6322
subsequent pandemic. In this respect, while invoking force majeure and arguing having
acted in compliance with the FIFA Guidelines on Covid-19, the club requested the claim of
the player be rejected or, subsidiary – if considered that the Claimant terminated the
contract with just cause – to mitigate the player’s compensation for breach of contract
taking into account the player’s new income at his new club.
11. The above being noted, the Chamber referred to the following events, which remained
undisputed between the parties:
-
The player travelled from China to Spain in February 2022 to treat an injury he
suffered;
-
In April 2022, the club requested the player to return to China to resume his
contractual obligations by 1 May 2022;
-
Thereafter, the player – on up to 6 occasions – requested the club to provide
him with flight tickets to return to China invoking clause 7 para. 3 of the contract,
without the club providing him any assistance to do so;
-
On 30 April 2022, the player put the club in default of payment of his outstanding
remuneration (6 monthly salaries and further financial benefits), granting the
club a deadline of 15 days to cure its breach; to no avail;
-
On 16 May 2022, the player granted the club a new deadline of 15 days to pay
him his outstanding remuneration (6 monthly salaries and further financial
benefits); to no avail;
-
On 1 June 2022, the player unilaterally terminated the contract invoking art. 14
bis RSTP;
-
By the date of termination, the club had failed to pay the following salaries
(gross): April 2020 (EUR 223,333), December 2021 (EUR 254,259), January 2022
(EUR 269,167), February 2022 (EUR 269,167), March 2022 (EUR 269,167), April
2022 (EUR 269,167) and May 2022 (EUR 269,167).
12. Considering that the allegations of the Respondent in connection with its impossibility to
perform the payments of the player’s salaries are not supported with any documentary
evidence, the Chamber underscored that the latter is not in a position to evaluate whether
the force majeure argumentation of the club could eventually be upheld. Therefore, the
DRC determined that the allegations provided by the club in that regard cannot be
followed.
13. As to the events surrounding the termination of the contract, the Chamber noted that the
club did not dispute having authorized the player’s departure to travel to Spain in
Page 9
REF FPSD-6322
February 2022 to treat his injury, event which – together with the emails exchanged
between the parties at the end of February 2022 – supports the allegations of the player
that he did so with the club’s approval.
14. Concerning the subsequent events (the club not providing the player with flight tickets to
travel from Ghana to Dalian despite the player’s numerous petitions and the club not
paying the abovementioned salaries of the player despite having been put in default of
payment twice in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations), the Chamber decided
that the Claimant did terminate the contract with just cause on 1 June 2022.
15. In this regard, the members of the Chamber found it vital to clarify that the termination
was made with just cause cf. art. 14bis of the Regulations and not on the basis of clause
10 para. 4 sub para. 1 of the contract, since the said contractual clause is null and void
insofar as it provides for a higher threshold (3 outstanding salaries instead of 2
outstanding salaries) for the player to have just cause to terminate the contract.
16. The above being said, the Chamber highlighted that, even though in the case at hand it
does not have any material impact (in any case more than 3 salaries were outstanding), it
is important to make it clear that the FIFA Regulations set a minimum and harmonised
standard of rights and the parties – not even within the scope of their autonomy of the
will – can agree on a framework of rights that is less protective than the Regulations.
17. As to the issue of whether the amounts to be awarded shall be gross or net, the Chamber
stated that it is important to note that the contract indicates both, the player’s salary in
gross and its equivalence in net.
18. Therefore, considering that the clause provides for the specific amount in net and in line
with the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, whereby it is desirable to award the
amounts in net and not in gross for the sake of clarity and the avoidance of confusion in
connection with the specific amounts that are to be received by the creditor, the Chamber
unanimously concluded that the player’s remuneration shall be awarded net in its entirety
in connection with the salaries and bonuses.
19. In addition, the Chamber stated that the Claimant provided sufficient evidence of having
scored 11 goals for the club during the season 2019/2020, thereby activating clause 5 of
the contract, which provided for a bonus of EUR 100,000 net, should the player score 10
goals during a season, as well as for an additional amount EUR 20,000 net for every goal
scored once the target of 10 goals had been reached. Consequently, the Chamber
determined that the Claimant is entitled to receive EUR 120,000 net as bonuses cf. clause
5 of the contract.
20. As for the Claimant’s entitlement to be reimbursed the costs of the flight tickets presented
by the latter, the members of the Chamber referred to the already addressed issue
Page 10
REF FPSD-6322
concerning the inadmissibility of the reimbursement requested in connection with the
flight tickets purchased in January 2020, whose request has not been entertained as
deemed inadmissible (prescribed) – as well as to the ones allegedly bought in May 2022,
whose supporting documentation the Chamber considered insufficient to prove that the
said expense was actually incurred, as the price thereon displayed holds no currency, and,
consequently, the Chamber decided that only the flight tickets’ expenses incurred in
November 2020 (EUR 4,249) and April 2021 (EUR 9,392) could be awarded to the Claimant
cf. clause 7 para. 3 of the contract.
21. In addition, the Chamber decided that, since clause 8 para. 2 of the contract specifically
provides so, the Respondent shall provide the Claimant with his Personal Income Tax
Certificates concerning the remuneration paid to him between June 2020 onwards (in the
opinion of the Chamber, the statute of limitations prevents the Football Tribunal from
ordering the club to issue the said certificates in connection with amounts accrued
outside of the period of 2 years set by art. 23 para. 3 of the Regulations).
ii. Consequences
22. 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.
23. 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 7 salaries
(December 2021 – May 2022), the bonus payable cf. clause 5 of the contract and the
reimbursement of certain flight tickets’ expenses, amounting to EUR 1,025,308 net.
24. 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,
i.e. EUR 1,025,308 net.
25. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until
the date of effective payment concerning the bonuses and the salaries due and, as for
the reimbursement of the flight tickets’ expenses, as from the date on which the claim
was lodged, in the absence of a contractually agreed due date for its payment.
26. 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,
Page 11
REF FPSD-6322
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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 EUR 1,050,000 net (i.e. the 7 salaries of EUR 150,000 net
each) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract.
30. 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.
31. Indeed, the player found employment with the Portuguese club, Rio Ave FC. In accordance
with the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to EUR 20,000 per
month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the
total amount of EUR 90,000, that is, 4.5 times EUR 20,000.
32. 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-6322
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore
decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
33. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
450,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
34. Consequently, considering that – as per art. 17 para. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations – the
residual value of the contract cannot in any case be exceeded after adding any amount
as additional compensation, should the player have mitigated his damages by signing a
new employment contract, the Chamber determined that the amount to be awarded to
the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract shall amount to EUR 1,050,000, i.e.
the residual value of the contract, which was considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
35. 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 June 2022 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
Page 13
REF FPSD-6322
39. 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.
40. 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
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-6322
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, EMMANUEL OKYERE BOATENG, is partially accepted insofar as
it is admissible.
2.
The Respondent, Dalian Professional FC, has to pay to the Claimant the following
amounts:
- EUR 1,025,308 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
-
On the amount of EUR 120,000 net, as from 31 January 2021 until the date of
effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 141,667 net, as from 1 January 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 150,000 net, as from 1 February 2022 until the date of
effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 150,000 net, as from 1 March 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 150,000 net, as from 1 April 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 150,000 net, as from 1 May 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 150,000 net, as from 1 June 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 13,641 net, as from 10 June 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
- EUR 1,050,000 net as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 10 June 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
The Respondent shall provide the Claimant with his Personal Income Tax Certificates
concerning the remuneration paid to him as from June 2020 onwards.
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.
Page 15
REF FPSD-6322
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 shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban
shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant 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).
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 16