Acórdão do FIFA
Processo Cabeza Jimenez_2025-03-27

REF. FPSD-14875

Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Alejandro Jair Cabeza Jimenez

COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member

CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
C.S. Emelec, Ecuador
Represented by Carlos Alberto Buitrago

FIRST RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Alejandro Jair Cabeza Jimenez, Ecuador
Represented by Fernando Daniel Baredes

SECOND RESPONDENT:
FC Sochi, Russia
Represented by Sila International Lawyers

pg. 2

REF. FPSD-14875

I. Facts of the case
1.

The parties to this dispute are:
•

the Ecuadorian club, C.S. Emelec (hereinafter: Emelec or the Claimant / CounterRespondent), affiliated to the Ecuadorian Football Association (FEF);

•

the Ecuadorian player, Alejandro Jair Cabeza Jimenez (hereinafter: the Player or the First
Respondent / Counterclaimant); and

•

the Russian club FC Sochi (hereinafter: Sochi or the Second Respondent), affiliated to the
Football Union of Russia (FUR).

2.

On 18 November 2021, Emelec and the Player entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 2 January 2022 until 30 December 2025.

3.

Clauses 2 and 8 of the Contract established the following:
“SEGUNDA: REMUNERACION: ‘EL JUGADOR’ recibirá por parte de EL CLUB, una
remuneración mensual y otros beneficios que no forman parte del sueldo. El pago de
esta remuneración se suspenderá por todo el tiempo que se suspenda la participación
deportiva del primer equipo de fútbol del Club Sport Emelec en el Campeonato Nacional
de Fútbol de Primera Categoría.
(…)
OCTAVA: PAGO DE MENSUALIDADES Y OTROS: EL CLUB pagará a EL JUGADOR mediante
quincenas vencidas, dentro de los 05 primeros días de cada quincena.”
Freely translated into English:
"SECOND: REMUNERATION: ‘THE PLAYER’ will receive from THE CLUB, a monthly
remuneration and other benefits that are not part of the salary. The payment of this
remuneration will be suspended for as long as the sporting participation of the first
football team of Club Sport Emelec in the National First Category Football Championship
is suspended.
(…)
EIGHTH: PAYMENT OF MONTHLY PAYMENTS AND OTHERS: THE CLUB will pay THE PLAYER
by overdue fortnightly payments, within the first 05 days of each fortnight.”

pg. 3

REF. FPSD-14875

4.

Clause 4 established, inter alia, the following:
“CUARTA: SUJECION DEL JUGADOR: ‘EL JUGADOR’ somete libre y voluntariamente este
contrato a la legislación de la República del Ecuador y, a la competencia de la Federación
Ecuatoriana de Fútbol para dirimir cualquier controversia derivada de la ejecución o
interpretación de este Contrato, y a cumplir con las disposiciones constantes en los
Estatutos y Reglamentos del CLUB y, más normas que rigen a la Federación Ecuatoriana
de Fútbol.
El JUGADOR también se somete, a la vigencia de todas las leyes, reglamentos y normas
que regulan el fútbol ecuatoriano, así como las normas éticas, morales y de buenas
costumbres que rigen las normas de convivencia básicas en la sociedad ecuatoriana
que, de manera expresa, declara conocer y acatar. (…)”
Freely translated into English:
“FOURTH: SUBMISSION OF THE PLAYER: ‘THE PLAYER’ freely and voluntarily submits this
contract to the legislation of the Republic of Ecuador and to the jurisdiction of the
Ecuadorian Football Association to settle any dispute arising from the execution or
interpretation of this Contract, and to comply with the provisions contained in the
Statutes and Regulations of the CLUB and, more rules governing the Ecuadorian Football
Association.
The PLAYER also submits to the validity of all the laws, regulations and rules that govern
Ecuadorian football, as well as the ethical, moral and good customs rules that govern
the basic rules of coexistence in Ecuadorian society, which he expressly declares to know
and abide by. (…)”

5.

Clause 12 of the Contract stipulated:
“DECIMA SEGUNDA: FALTA DE ASISTENCIA: Para los casos en que EL JUGADOR faltare a
algún partido o entrenamiento de fútbol para el que hubiese sido convocado o citado
por el Director Técnico, por causas que no sean calamidad doméstica o fuerza mayor
debidamente comprobadas, se le reducirán sus ingresos de manera proporcional. En
caso de reincidencia podrá ser tomada como causal para dar por terminado el presente
contrato, sin lugar a indemnización alguna a favor de EL JUGADOR.”
Freely translated into English:
“TWELFTH: FAILURE TO ATTEND: In the event that THE PLAYER misses a match or football
training session for which he has been game or football training for which he has been

pg. 4

REF. FPSD-14875

summoned or called by the Technical by the Technical Director, for reasons other than
domestic calamity or force majeure duly proven, his revenue will be reduced in a
proportional manner.
In case of recidivism, it may be taken as a cause for termination of the present contract,
without any compensation in favour of THE PLAYER.”
6.

The Contract included an annex titled “Anexo al Contrato que celebran el Club Sport Emelec
y el jugador Alejandro Cabeza”, freely translated into English: “Annex to the Contract
between Club Sport Emelec and the Player Alejandro Cabeza”, (hereinafter: the Annex),
which established the following:
“Desde el 2 de Enero del 2022 hasta el 30 de Diciembre del 2025, el JUGADOR, percibirá
los siguientes valores no imputables al sueldo:
1. HONORARIOS El Club pagará a título de honorarios al JUGADOR:
Desde el 2 de Enero del 2022 hasta el 30 de Diciembre del 2022, el JUGADOR recibirá un
pago mensual fijo de US$13,000.00 (TRECE MIL DOLARES AMERICANOS) a título de
honorario por contraprestación que hace de la cesión de su imagen publicitaria al CLUB;
Desde el 2 de Enero del 2023 hasta el 30 de Diciembre del 2023, el JUGADOR recibirá un
pago mensual fijo de US$14,000.00 (CATORCE MIL DOLARES AMERICANOS) a título de
honorario por contraprestación que hace de la cesión de su imagen publicitaria al CLUB;
Desde el 2 de Enero del 2024 hasta el 30 de Diciembre del 2024, el JUGADOR recibirá un
pago mensual fijo de US$15,500.00 (QUINCE MIL QUINIENTOS DOLARES AMERICANOS) a
título de honorario por contraprestación que hace de la cesión de su imagen publicitaria
al CLUB;
Desde el 2 de Enero del 2025 hasta el 30 de Diciembre del 2025, el JUGADOR recibirá un
pago mensual fijo de US$17,000.00(DIECISIETE MIL DOLARES AMERICANOS) a título de
honorario por contraprestación que hace de la cesión de su imagen publicitaria al CLUB;
2. PRIMA.- Por concepto de PRIMA, el CLUB, pagará los siguientes valores al JUGADOR:
-

En Marzo 31 del 2022, un pago único de $25,000.00(VEINTICINCO MIL DOLARES).

-

En Junio 30 del 2022, un pago único de $25,000.00(VEINTICINCO MIL DOLARES).

-

En Agosto 31 del 2022, un pago único de $25,000.00(VEINTICINCO MIL DOLARES).

pg. 5

REF. FPSD-14875

3. BENEFICIOS ADICIONALES.- Durante la vigencia del presente contrato, el Club pagará
el arriendo de una casa en Villa Club o La Joya, para uso del JUGADOR. (…)”
Freely translated into English:
“From January 2, 2022 until December 30, 2025, the PLAYER will receive the following
values not attributable to the salary:
1. FEES The Club shall pay fees to the PLAYER:
From January 2, 2022 until December 30, 2022, the PLAYER will receive a fixed monthly
payment of US$13,000.00 (THIRTEEN THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS) as a fee in
consideration for the assignment of his publicity image to the CLUB;
From January 2, 2023 until December 30, 2023, the PLAYER will receive a fixed monthly
payment of US$14,000.00 (FOURTEEN THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS) as a fee for the
consideration he makes for the assignment of his publicity image to the CLUB;
From January 2, 2024 until December 30, 2024, the PLAYER will receive a fixed monthly
payment of US$15,500.00 (FIFTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AMERICAN DOLLARS) as
a fee for the assignment of his publicity image to the CLUB;
From January 2, 2025 until December 30, 2025, the PLAYER will receive a fixed monthly
payment of US$17,000.00 (SEVENTEEN THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS) as a fee for the
consideration he makes for the assignment of his publicity image to the CLUB;
2. BONUS: For concept of BONUS, the CLUB will pay the following values to the PLAYER:
-

On March 31, 2022, a one-time payment of $25,000.00 (TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS).

-

On June 30, 2022, a one-time payment of $25,000.00 (TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS).

-

On August 31, 2022, a one-time payment of $25,000.00 (TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS).

3. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS: During the term of this contract, the Club will pay for the lease
of a house in Villa Club or La Joya, for the use of the PLAYER. (...)”
7.

On 30 August 2023, Sochi sent a letter to Emelec with an offer for the definitive transfer of
the Player. Sochi offered to pay Emelec EUR 1,200,000 in two instalments: EUR 600,000
before 15 September 2023 and EUR 600,000 before 30 June 2024. Sochi informed Emelec
that the offer was valid until 1 September 2023.

pg. 6

REF. FPSD-14875

8.

On 31 August 2023, Emelec replied to Sochi’s offer with a counteroffer. Emelec proposed
that Sochi would pay EUR 2,200,000 in two instalments: EUR 1,100,000 on the day of the
transfer and EUR 1,100,000 before 30 January 2024. Additionally, Emelec proposed to
retain 30% of the economic rights arising from a subsequent transfer of the Player from
Sochi to another club. Emelec granted Sochi a deadline to respond until 4 September 2023.

9.

According to Emelec, on the same date, the Player’s agent informed Emelec that Sochi was
not interested in concluding an agreement under the conditions proposed in the
counteroffer.

10. On 1 September 2023, Emelec sent another letter to Sochi with a new counteroffer. This
time, Emelec proposed that Sochi would pay EUR 1,400,000 in two instalments: EUR
1,150,000 as down payment on the day of the transfer, and EUR 250,000 as the “player
transfer percentage”, which should be paid to the Player on or before 28 February 2024.
Additionally, Emelec proposed to retain 30% of the economic rights arising from a
subsequent transfer of the Player from Sochi to another club. Emelec granted Sochi a
deadline to respond until 4 September 2023.
11. On 7 September 2023, Sochi sent a new communication to Emelec, requesting that the
latter agree to a medical test for the Player in Russia from 8 to 10 September 2023. In the
event of a successful medical test, Sochi proposed to conclude a loan agreement until the
end of the 2023/2024 season (30 June 2024), which included a buy option. The conditions
of this third counteroffer were as follows: a loan fee of EUR 200,000, a mandatory buy
option of EUR 1,200,000 if the Player played five or more games in the Russian Premier
League by the end of the first part of the season (10 December 2023) and a sell-on fee of
30%.
12. On the same date, Emelec replied to Sochi’s letter, rejecting the third counteroffer and
informing it that Emelec would only accept a definitive transfer. In this regard, Emelec
proposed that Sochi would pay EUR 1,400,000, but distributed in two instalments as
follows: EUR 1,175,000 as down payment on the day of the transfer, and EUR 225,000 as
the “player transfer percentage”, which should be paid to the Player on or before 28 February
2024. Additionally, Emelec maintained the proposal to retain 30% of the economic rights
arising from a subsequent transfer of the Player from Sochi to another club and added the
option to facilitate the Player’s medical reports. Emelec granted Sochi a deadline to respond
until 9 September 2023.
13. On an unspecified date, Emelec sent Sochi a draft of a definitive transfer agreement for
70% of the economic rights of the Player. In this draft, Emelec stipulated that the transfer
fee would be EUR 1,400,000 net, to be paid in three instalments: EUR 700,000 net upon the
ITC being issued in TMS, EUR 475,000 net on or before 31 December 2023, and EUR 225,000
net on or before 28 February 2024, to be paid directly to the Player as the “Player Transfer
Percentage”. In clause 14 of this draft, Emelec included a penalty clause for the event that

pg. 7

REF. FPSD-14875

the employment contract between Sochi and the Player was terminated for any reason,
resulting in Emelec losing 30% of the economic rights of the Player. In this context, it was
established that, under such circumstances, Sochi would have to pay Emelec EUR
2,000,000.
14. According to Emelec, it authorised the Player to travel to Russia to undergo the medical
tests. Between 9 and 10 September 2023, the Player flew from Guayaquil (Ecuador) to
Madrid (Spain), from Madrid (Spain) to Istanbul (Türkiye) and from Istanbul (Türkiye) to
Sochi (Russia).
15. According to Emelec, on 14 September 2023, it received a new draft of a definitive transfer
agreement from Sochi. In the draft, it was established that Emelec transferred 100% of the
“registration and transfer” rights of the Player for EUR 1,300,000, to be paid in three
instalments as follows: EUR 300,000 on or before 1 October 2023, EUR 500,000 on or before
1 March 2024 and EUR 500,000 on or before 1 June 2024. Additionally, Sochi undertook to
pay a sell-on fee of 30% to Emelec, in the event that the Player was transferred on a
permanent basis to a third club.
16. Also on 14 September 2023, Emelec sent a letter to Sochi reaffirming the terms established
in the draft of the definitive transfer agreement it had sent to Sochi. Emelec granted Sochi
a deadline until the end of the day and informed it that, if the counteroffer was not
accepted, the Player should immediately return to Emelec.
17. According to Emelec, on 14 September 2023, Sochi sent Emelec the same previous
agreement, but this time signed by Sochi and the Player.
18. On 14 September 2023, the Player put Emelec in default and requested payment of USD
75,000, which corresponded to the bonuses stipulated in the Annex. The Player set a 15day time limit for Emelec to remedy its default, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations). Additionally, the Player
requested Emelec to pay USD 50,000 to his intermediary within the same deadline, based
on a transfer agreement previously concluded between Emelec, the Player, the
intermediary and the Ecuadorian club S.D. Aucas.
19. On the same date, the Player submitted a request for payment against Emelec to the
president of the Mediation and Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FEF (hereinafter: the
Ecuadorian NDRC), requesting USD 75,000. Specifically, the Player demanded that the
president request payment from Emelec, based on art. 44 lit g) of the Regulations of the
FEF and art. 7 lit d) of the Ecuadorian NDRC’s Regulations.
20. Art. 44 lit g) of the Regulations of the FEF establishes:
“Art. 44.- Son causas para la terminación del contrato celebrado entre el club y el
jugador, las siguientes:

pg. 8

REF. FPSD-14875

(…)
g) La mora en el pago por más de sesenta días, de los valores que deba recibir el jugador,
de parte del club;
(…)
En casos del literal g) anterior los organismos competentes, según este reglamento,
establecerán un plazo no mayor de quince días para que el club cumpla con sus
obligaciones. (…)”
Freely translated into English:
“Art. 44.- The following are grounds for termination of the contract between the club and
the player:
(…)
g) Delay of more than sixty days in the payment by the club of amounts owed to the
player;
(…)
In cases referred to in paragraph g) above, the competent bodies, in accordance with
these regulations, shall set a period of no more than fifteen days for the club to comply
with its obligations. (…)"
21. Art. 7 lit d) of the Ecuadorian NDRC’s Regulations stipulates:
“Art. 7.- Casos en que El Presidente actuará como Juez Único.El Presidente de la CMRD, actuará como juez único en los siguientes casos:
(…)
d) Para el requerimiento del Jugador al Club que está en mora en el pago de dos o más
remuneraciones mensuales como requisito de procedibilidad para demandar la
rescisión del Contrato por causa justificada, en cuyo caso el plazo será de quince días
(…)”
Freely translated into English:
"Art. 7.- Cases in which the President shall act as sole judge.-

pg. 9

REF. FPSD-14875

The President of the CMRD shall act as sole judge in the following cases:
(…)
d) For the request made by the Player to the Club that is in default of payment of two or
more monthly remunerations as a prerequisite for proceeding with the termination of
the Contract for justified cause, in which case the period shall be fifteen days (...)"
22. Between 16 and 18 September 2023, the Player flew from Sochi (Russia) to Istanbul
(Türkiye), from Istanbul (Türkiye) to Amsterdam (the Netherlands), from Amsterdam (the
Netherlands) to Panama City (Panama) and from Panama City (Panama) to Quito (Ecuador).
23. On 19 September 2023, Emelec acknowledged receipt of the Player’s letter dated 14
September 2023, and informed him that he should report for training on 20 September
2023, as he had returned to Guayaquil after his failed transfer.
24. On 21 September 2023, Emelec replied to the Player’s letter, stating that the debt owed to
him was not related to salaries but rather to bonuses not attributable to salaries.
Therefore, Emelec asserted that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the
Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations and should comply with the Contract.
Additionally, Emelec asserted that the debt owed to his intermediary was unrelated to the
employment relationship.
25. On 1 October 2023, the Player terminated the Contract, arguing just cause based on art.
14bis of the Regulations. The Player highlighted that Emelec acknowledged a debt for USD
75,000, which was higher than two monthly salaries.
26. On 3 October 2023, the Player signed an employment contract with Sochi valid as from 3
October 2023 until 30 June 2026, including a monthly salary of EUR 30,000 net. If the Player
played 14 or more matches in the 2023/2024 season, his monthly salary would increase to
EUR 35,000 net in the following season. If the Player played 60% or more of all official
matches in the Russian Premier League in the 2024/2025 season, his monthly salary would
increase to EUR 40,000 net in the following season.
27. Also on 3 October 2023, Emelec replied to the Player’s termination letter, stating that he
was terminating the Contract without just cause. In this regard, Emelec argued that it did
not owe any salary nor any other salary-related concept arising from the Contract, and that
the Player was confusing art. 12bis of the Regulations with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
However, Emelec acknowledged the debt, but claimed that its origin was the transfer and
that it was unrelated to the employment contract. Finally, Emelec granted the Player the
opportunity to return to training and continue with the Contract.

pg. 10

REF. FPSD-14875

28. On 4 October 2023, the FUR made a request for intervention to FIFA in order to register the
Player outside the registration period.
29. On 10 October 2023, the FEF informed Emelec that an ITC request had been received from
the FUR in favour of Sochi and requested Emelec to inform whether the Player still had any
employment relationship with Emelec or not.
30. On 12 October 2023, Emelec responded to the FEF’s letter, informing that it had a current
contract with the Player. Although Emelec acknowledged that the Player terminated the
Contract, it mentioned that the termination was made without just cause and, therefore,
Emelec did not accept the termination and requested the Player to report for training.
31. On 12 October 2023, according to the information retrieved from TMS, the FEF rejected the
ITC request.
32. On 13 October 2023, the ITC request from the FUR was granted with immediate effect by
the Players’ Status Chamber, without prejudice to any possible decision from the Dispute
Resolution Chamber regarding a contractual dispute between the Player and Emelec, as
well as with Sochi.
33. On 19 October 2023, the FUR permitted Sochi to register the Player outside the registration
period.
34. On 24 October 2023, Sochi announced the Player on its Instagram.
35. On 5 April 2024, the Ecuadorian NDRC invited Emelec either to pay the amount requested
by the Player (USD 75,000) or, alternatively, to provide a justification for the non-payment
of the amounts claimed by the Player within 15 days.
36. On 19 April 2024, Emelec submitted its response to the Player’s payment demand before
the Ecuadorian NDRC. In this respect, Emelec stated that: (i) the Player’s claim was no longer
necessary or binding, as he had already terminated the Contract. However, Emelec alleged
that his signature and thumbprint were fake as he was not in Guayaquil at the time he
lodged this demand; (ii) the bonuses claimed by the Player were not paid monthly; (iii) the
bonuses were not attributable to salaries; and (iv) the Player had breached the Contract as
he left the club and signed a new contract in Russia.
37. Thereafter, on 7 June 2024, Emelec filed the present claim before the Football Tribunal.
38. On 18 September 2024, the FEF informed the FIFA general secretariat of the following:
“El 4 de abril de 2024, el presidente de la CMRD-FEF, Ab. Carlos Jerez Llusca, emitió una
providencia en calidad de juez único, en la que exhorta al CLUB SPORT EMELEC a que,
en un plazo de quince días, realice el pago o justifique el cumplimiento de los montos

pg. 11

REF. FPSD-14875

reclamados por el jugador Alejandro Jair Cabeza Jiménez, en su calidad de futbolista
profesional. Posteriormente, el 19 de abril de 2024, el Club Sport Emelec presentó su
respuesta al requerimiento de pago, por lo tanto, no hay más que dar curso a las
actuaciones en este expediente.

⁠Conforme al Reglamento de la CMRD-FEF, una vez que se realizó el requerimiento, y el

club lo contestó, el procedimiento ha sido agotado y no quedan más actuaciones que
realizar; en caso de que el jugador tenga la intención de continuar con su reclamo, debe
presentar la demanda principal, conforme nuestra norma reglamentaria.”
Freely translated into English:
"On 4 April 2024, the president of the CMRD-FEF, Ab. Carlos Jerez Llusca, issued a
providence in his capacity as sole judge, in which he exhorts CLUB SPORT EMELEC to
make payment or justify compliance with the amounts claimed by the player Alejandro
Jair Cabeza Jiménez, in his capacity as a professional footballer, within a period of fifteen
days. Subsequently, on 19 April 2024, Club Sport Emelec submitted its response to the
request for payment, therefore, there is no further action to be taken in this case file.
In accordance with the CMRD-FEF Regulations, once the demand has been made, and
the club has answered it, the procedure has been exhausted and there are no further
actions to be taken; in the event that the player intends to continue with his claim, he
must file the main lawsuit, in accordance with our regulations.”
39. On 19 September 2024, the Ecuadorian NDRC acknowledged receipt of Emelec’s response.
40. On 23 September 2024, Emelec requested the Ecuadorian NDRC to declare that it is not
competent to decide on the claim lodged by the Player and to declare the nullity of the
proceedings due to lack of competence and lis pendens. This was based on the fact that the
Player filed a claim before FIFA that included part of his claim before the Ecuadorian NDRC.
Furthermore, Emelec clarified that this was not raised when it submitted its reply to the
claim, because, at that time, the Player had not yet filed the claim before FIFA.

II. Proceedings before FIFA
41. As mentioned above, on 7 June 2024, Emelec filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A
summary of the parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of Emelec
42. Emelec lodged a claim against the Player and Sochi, arguing that the Player terminated the
Contract without just cause and that Sochi induced such a breach.

pg. 12

REF. FPSD-14875

43. First, Emelec stated that the Player was not entitled to terminate the Contract based on art.
14bis of the Regulations, because the Regulations only apply to cases with an international
dimension. The Club argued that, instead, the Player should have put the club in default by
means of art. 44 of “Ley 56 del Futbolista Profesional de Ecuador”, freely translated into
English: “Law 56 of the Professional Football Player of Ecuador”, but he failed to do so.
44. Additionally, although Emelec acknowledged that it had a delay regarding the payment of
the bonuses, it asserted that these claimed bonuses were not attributable to salaries and
were not paid on a monthly basis. Therefore, Emelec contended that the Player did not
have just cause, and it was he who breached the Contract and signed another one with a
new club.
45. In this respect, Emelec argued that the Player and Sochi acted in bad faith to avoid the
payment of the transfer fee that was being negotiated between both clubs. Thus, Emelec
alleged that both respondents caused Emelec damage which should be compensated.
46. Furthermore, Emelec stated that it should be presumed that Sochi induced the Player
because: (i) the Player terminated the Contract without just cause; (ii) a few days later, he
signed a new contract with Sochi; (iii) the contract between the Player and Sochi was signed
only one month after the failed negotiations; and (iv) there were only 23 days between the
termination and the announcement made by Sochi.
47. Emelec alleged that the draft of the definitive transfer agreement signed by Sochi
stipulated that it would pay EUR 1,300,000 for 70% of the economic rights of the Player.
Also, Emelec mentioned that it had the expectation to receive between EUR 1,300,000 and
EUR 1,400,000 for 70% of the economic rights. Therefore, Emelec concluded that the value
of 70% of the economic rights should be considered EUR 1,400,000 or EUR 1,300,000.
Following this reasoning, Emelec assured that the Player, and Sochi as jointly liable parties,
owe Emelec EUR 2,000,000 for the termination without just cause, or at least EUR
1,857,142.
48. Emelec’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“IV. PETICIONES
1. Admitir la presente demanda toda vez que cumple con todos los requisitos
reglamentarios establecidos en los reglamentos expedidos por la FIFA, aplicables al
presente caso.
2. Admitir los hechos y las peticiones de la presente demanda puesto que están basadas
en el Reglamento sobre el Estatuto y la Transferencia de Jugadores de FIFA, y fue
presentada dentro del término establecido para este tipo de casos, interrumpiendo
cualquier término prescriptivo aplicable.

pg. 13

REF. FPSD-14875

3. Declarar que el Jugador terminó su Contrato con Emelec de forma unilateral y sin
justa causa.
4. Declarar que Sochi indujo al Jugador a terminar su contrato con Emelec.
5. Declarar que el Jugador y Sochi son solidariamente responsables por haber incurrido
en una inducción a ruptura contractual y una terminación sin justa causa del Contrato
del Jugador con Emelec.
6. Ordenar al Jugador y solidariamente a Sochi, a realizar el pago inmediato a Emelec
de la suma de DOS MILLONES DE EUROS (EUR€2.000.000), más los intereses moratorios
a que haya lugar, calculados a la máxima tasa legal permitida por la legislación suiza
desde el 1 de octubre de 2023, fecha en la cual el jugador notificó a Emelec de la
terminación unilateral del Contrato, y hasta la fecha real en que se haga efectivo el pago.
7. De manera subsidiaria, ordenar al Jugador y solidariamente a Sochi, a realizar el pago
inmediato a Emelec de la suma de UN MILLÓN OCHOCIENTOS CINCUENTA Y SIETE MIL
CIENTO CUARENTA Y DOS EUROS (EUR 1.857.142) más los intereses moratorios a que
haya lugar, calculados a la máxima tasa legal permitida por la legislación suiza desde
el 1 de octubre de 2023, fecha en la cual el jugador notificó a Emelec de la terminación
unilateral del Contrato, y hasta la fecha real en que se haga efectivo el pago.
8. Imponer la sanción deportiva al Jugador establecida en el artículo 17.3 del
Reglamento Sobre el Estatuto y la Transferencia de Jugadores de FIFA, consistente en una
restricción de cuatro (4) meses en su elegibilidad para disputar cualquier partido oficial,
o de seis (6) meses en caso tal de que concurran circunstancias agravantes.
9. Imponer la sanción deportiva a Sochi establecida en el artículo 17.4 del Reglamento
Sobre el Estatuto y la Transferencia de Jugadores de FIFA, consistente en la prohibición
de inscribir nuevos jugadores tanto en el ámbito nacional como en el internacional,
durante dos (2) periodos de inscripción completos y consecutivos.
10. Admitir el poder especial otorgado y adjunto como Anexo 23.”
Freely translated into English:
"IV. REQUESTS
1. Admit the present application as it complies with all the statutory requirements set
out in the regulations issued by FIFA, which are applicable to the present case.
2. Admit the facts and claims of the present application as they are based on the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and were filed within the time limit
established for this type of case, interrupting any applicable statute of limitations.

pg. 14

REF. FPSD-14875

3. To declare that the Player terminated his Contract with Emelec unilaterally and
without just cause.
4. Declare that Sochi induced the Player to terminate his contract with Emelec.
5. To declare that the Player and Sochi are jointly and severally liable for inducing a
breach of contract and a termination without just cause of the Player's Contract with
Emelec.
6. To order the Player and Sochi, jointly and severally, to make immediate payment to
Emelec of the sum of TWO MILLION EUROS (EUR 2,000,000), plus any applicable default
interest, calculated at the maximum legal rate permitted by Swiss law from 1 October
2023, the date on which the Player notified Emelec of the unilateral termination of the
Contract, until the actual date on which payment is made.
7. In the alternative, order the Player and Sochi jointly and severally, to make immediate
payment to Emelec of the sum of ONE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY TWO EUROS (EUR 1,857,142) plus any applicable
default interest, calculated at the maximum legal rate permitted by Swiss law from 1
October 2023, the date on which the Player notified Emelec of the unilateral termination
of the Contract, and until the actual date on which payment is made.
8. To impose the sporting sanction on the Player set out in article 17.3 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, consisting of a four (4) month
restriction on his eligibility to play in any official match, or six (6) months in the event of
aggravating circumstances.
9. To impose the sporting sanction on Sochi as set out in article 17.4 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, consisting of a ban on the registration
of new players at both national and international level for two (2) full and consecutive
registration periods.
10. To accept the special power of attorney granted and attached as Annex 23.”
b. Reply of the Player and counterclaim
49. On 23 July 2024, the Player submitted his reply to Emelec’s claim and lodged a counterclaim
against it.
50. In his reply, the Player first disputed all the arguments raised by Emelec. Then, the Player
argued that Emelec owed him USD 75,000 and, therefore, he terminated the Contract with
just cause. In this regard, the Player stated that he duly put Emelec in default and granted
it 15 days to remedy the situation, according to art. 14bis of the Regulations.

pg. 15

REF. FPSD-14875

51. Based on the above, the Player lodged a counterclaim requesting payment of USD
139,406.71, of which USD 97,406.71 corresponded to outstanding salaries plus interest,
and USD 42,000 to compensation.
52. The Player’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“VI. PETITIUM
Basado en los argumentos presentados, solicitamos respetuosamente a la Cámara de
Resolución de Disputas de la FIFA que:
a. Reconozca que el Jugador tenia justa causa para terminar su contrato con Emelec
bajo el Articulo 14bis del RETJ debido a bonos impagados.
b. Desestime cualquier reclamo de compensación de Emelec contra el Jugador, ya que
la terminación del contrato por parte del Jugador fue justificada y de acuerdo con las
regulaciones de la FIFA.
c. De lugar a la reconvención y condene a Emelec al pago total de dólares
estadounidenses ciento treinta y nueve mil cuatrocientos seis con 71/100
d. Aplique las sanciones disciplinarias al club Emelec de conformidad con el articulo 17.4
del RETJ.”
Freely translated into English:
"VI. PETITIUM
Based on the arguments presented, we respectfully request the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to:
a. Recognise that the Player had just cause to terminate his contract with Emelec under
Article 14bis of the RSTP due to unpaid bonuses.
b. Dismiss any claim for compensation by Emelec against the Player, as the Player's
termination of his contract was justified and in accordance with FIFA regulations.
c. Allow the counterclaim and order Emelec to pay the full amount of one hundred and
thirty-nine thousand four hundred and six dollars and 71/100.
d. Apply the disciplinary sanctions to the club Emelec in accordance with article 17.4 of
the RSTP.”

pg. 16

REF. FPSD-14875

53. On 29 July 2024, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Player to complete his
counterclaim in accordance with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the
Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). Inter alia, the FIFA general secretariat
requested the Player to submit a copy of his Bank Account Registration Form (BARF).
54. Within the granted deadline, the Player submitted an incomplete version of his BARF and
modified his request for relief as follows:
“VI. PETITIUM
Basado en los argumentos presentados, solicitamos respetuosamente a la Cámara de
Resolución de Disputas de la FIFA que:
a. Reconozca la orden de la CNRD de Ecuador y ordene pagar al Jugador las sumas
reclamadas
b. Desestime cualquier reclamo de compensación de Emelec contra el Jugador, ya que
la terminación del contrato por parte del Jugador fue justificada y de acuerdo con las
regulaciones de la FIFA.
c. De lugar a la reconvención y condene a Emelec al pago total de dólares
estadounidenses ciento treinta y nueve mil cuatrocientos seis con 71/100
d. Aplique las sanciones disciplinarias al club Emelec de conformidad con el articulo 17.4
del RETJ
Freely translated into English:
“‘VI. PETITIUM
Based on the arguments presented, we respectfully request the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to:
a. Recognise the order of the Ecuadorian NDRC and order that the Player be paid the
sums claimed.
b. Dismiss any claim for compensation by Emelec against the Player, as the Player's
termination of his contract was justified and in accordance with FIFA regulations.
c. Allow the counterclaim and order Emelec to pay the total amount of one hundred
and thirty-nine thousand four hundred and six dollars and seventy-one cents.

pg. 17

REF. FPSD-14875

d. Apply the disciplinary disciplinary sanctions against Emelec in accordance with article
17.4 of the RSTP.”
55. On 31 July 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Player’s
submission and accompanying documentation and requested that he submit a complete
version of the BARF by no later than the same deadline granted in the first correspondence,
i.e., 2 August 2024.
56. On 6 August 2024, the FIFA general secretariat confirmed that no response had been
provided by the Player and requested that he provided the new BARF by 9 August 2024 at
the latest. The FIFA general secretariat then informed that it would be up to the Dispute
Resolution Chamber to rule upon the admissibility of the entire counterclaim.
c. Reply of Sochi
57. On 24 July 2024, Sochi also submitted its response to Emelec’s claim.
58. First, Sochi argued that the claim lodged by Emelec was inadmissible due to lis pendens. In
this regard, Sochi mentioned that (i) the Player filed a claim before the Ecuadorian NDRC in
September 2023, claiming the outstanding amounts and requesting to establish that he
had just cause to terminate the Contract; (ii) Emelec filed its response to the Player’s claim;
and (iii) despite the proceedings before the Ecuadorian NDRC, Emelec filed a claim against
the Player and Sochi before FIFA.
59. According to Sochi, both criteria of lis pendens are fulfilled in the present case: the Player
and Emelec are the parties of the proceedings before the Ecuadorian NDRC as well as the
dispute at stake, thus satisfying the criterion of “identity of the parties”, both claims are
based on the Contract and both actions aim to establish either party’s liability for the early
termination of the Contract, satisfying the condition of “identity of the object”.
60. However, Sochi asserted that, if the DRC considered the claim as admissible, the Player
terminated the Contract with just cause, as Emelec failed to pay him approximately 5.5
monthly salaries, which significantly exceeds the threshold established by art. 14bis of the
Regulations. Additionally, Sochi pointed out that the bonuses were clearly part of the
Player’s remuneration and that he put Emelec in default, granting the latter a 15-day
deadline to comply with payment.
61. Furthermore, Sochi argued that, in the event that the DRC determines that the Player did
not have just cause, it should not be ordered to pay any compensation to Emelec.
Notwithstanding this, Sochi alleged that the compensation requested by Emelec cannot be
upheld. In this respect, Sochi mentioned that Emelec failed to establish any connection
between the transfer price requested from Sochi and the damages that Emelec might have
suffered. However, Sochi stated that it had never agreed to the transfer fee of EUR

pg. 18

REF. FPSD-14875

1,400,000, and the offered amount of EUR 1,300,000 was not accepted by Emelec.
Moreover, Sochi contended that the Player terminated the Contract due to Emelec’s failure
to pay USD 75,000 and, in this sense, any lost opportunity was caused solely by Emelec.
62. In addition, Sochi stated that the Contract did not include any compensation clause.
Therefore, the compensation should be calculated based on the parameters of art. 17 par.
1 of the Regulations, and the maximum compensation to be paid is limited to EUR
603,282.50. Without prejudice to the aforementioned, Sochi argued that the compensation
should be reduced to zero due to Emelec’s blatant bad faith conduct towards the Player.
63. In any event, Sochi argued that it signed the contract with the Player as a free agent and
provided two witness statements supporting this allegation. In this respect, Sochi stated
that when Emelec rejected its last offer, the Player returned to Ecuador, and Sochi could
not influence, let alone induce, the Player to terminate the Contract. Therefore, Sochi
alleged that the negotiations between the Player and Sochi to conclude the contract were
conducted when the Player was no longer an employee of Emelec. Also, Sochi asserted that
no sporting sanctions should be imposed on it.
64. Sochi’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“VII
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Based on the foregoing, FC Sochi hereby respectfully asks the FIFA DRC to rule as follows:
1. The claim of the Claimant, C.S. Emelec, Ecuador, is inadmissible.
In the alternative, if the FIFA DRC concludes that the claim is admissible,
1. The claim of the Claimant, C.S. Emelec, Ecuador, is rejected.
In the last and almost impossible alternative, if the FIFA DRC concludes that C.S. Emelec
is entitled to receive any compensation,
1. The claim of the Claimant, C.S. Emelec, Ecuador, is partially accepted.
2. The First Respondent, Alejandro Jair Cabeza Jimenez, Ecuador, shall pay to the
Claimant the compensation for breach of contract in the maximum amount of EUR
603,282.50.
3. The Second Respondent, FC Sochi, Russia, shall not be jointly and severally liable for
payment of the compensation mentioned in point 2 above.

pg. 19

REF. FPSD-14875

4. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.”
d. Emelec’s reply to the counterclaim and to Sochi’s position
65. On 29 August 2024, Emelec submitted its response to the counterclaim lodged by the
Player. Emelec first reaffirmed all the arguments stated in its claim.
66. Then, Emelec pointed out that FIFA is not competent to decide on the counterclaim due to
a lack of international dimension, as both the Player and Emelec are Ecuadorian. In this
regard, Emelec clarified that, conversely, the dispute against the Player and Sochi does
have an international dimension, given that Sochi is a Russian club, and it was not possible
for Emelec to lodge a claim against Sochi in the Ecuadorian NDRC.
67. Additionally, Emelec asserted that, since the Player had already lodged a claim against
Emelec in the Ecuadorian NDRC, with the same facts and requests, there is also a case of
lis pendens. In this respect, Emelec assured that the Player filed a claim and Emelec
submitted its response solely to defend itself, although it intended to lodge a claim against
the Player and Sochi. In this sense, Emelec stated that it was entitled to lodge a claim before
FIFA against both parties, but the Player could not lodge a counterclaim based on the
above. Therefore, Emelec contended that FIFA should determine that it is not competent
to entertain the counterclaim.
68. Furthermore, Emelec reiterated the arguments of its claim concerning the breaches
committed by the Player and the fact that the bonuses were not paid on a monthly basis
nor attributable to salaries. In addition, Emelec mentioned that the Player terminated the
Contract without just cause and, therefore, it should not be condemned to pay
compensation. Emelec also argued that the Player was not entitled to September’s salary
based on Ecuadorian law, as he did not work during the entire month.
69. Subsidiarily, Emelec contended that, in the event that it is required to pay compensation,
this amount should be mitigated because the Player signed a new contract with Sochi two
days after terminating the Contract and was able to mitigate his damages.
70. Emelec’s requests for relief were the following (quoted verbatim):
“III. SOLICITUDES
1. Que se admita la presente contestación a la demanda reconvencional.
2. Que se declare que FIFA no tiene competencia para conocer ni resolver sobre la
demanda reconvencional.
3. Que, en consecuencia, se rechacen y desestimen cada una de las pretensiones del
Jugador.

pg. 20

REF. FPSD-14875

4. Que el Jugador sea condenado al pago total de las costas procesales.
De forma subsidiaria, y solo en el entendido de que FIFA se declare competente para
conocer del presente proceso:
1. Que se admita la presente contestación a la demanda reconvencional.
2. Que se declare que el Jugador en ningún momento constituyó en mora a Emelec
debida ni legítimamente.
3. Que se declare que Emelec en ningún momento estuvo en mora con el Jugador
respecto a pagos salariales y mensuales.
4. Que se declare que el Jugador incumplió reiteradamente sus obligaciones
contractuales con Emelec, ausentándose de manera injustificada a los entrenamientos
de Emelec durante todo el mes de septiembre de 2023.
5. Que en consecuencia se declare que el Jugador fue quien terminó el Contrato de
manera unilateral y sin justa causa durante un periodo protegido de competición,
causándole un grave perjuicio a Emelec al no poder reemplazar al Jugador durante el
tiempo restante de competencia.
6. En ese sentido, que se declare que Emelec no debe pagarle al Jugador ninguna suma
de dinero, ni por concepto del valor residual del Contrato desde el mes de octubre de
2023 hasta diciembre de 2025, ni el valor correspondiente al salario del mes de
septiembre de 2023, y en dado caso, es el Jugador quien debe indemnizar a Emelec por
la terminación unilateral y sin justa causa del Contrato durante un periodo protegido de
competición.
7. Que, en consecuencia, no le sean impuestas sanciones deportivas a Emelec.”
Freely translated into English:
"III. REQUESTS
1. That the present defence to the counterclaim be admitted.
2. Declare that FIFA has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the counterclaim.
3. Consequently, reject and dismiss each of the Player's claims.
4. That the Player be ordered to pay the full costs of the proceedings.

pg. 21

REF. FPSD-14875

In the alternative, and only in the event that FIFA declares that it has jurisdiction to
hear the present proceedings:
1. That the present defence to the counterclaim be admitted.
2. Declare that the Player at no time duly or legitimately constituted Emelec in default.
3. Declare that Emelec was at no time in arrears with the Player in respect of salary
and monthly payments.
4. Declare that the Player repeatedly failed to comply with his contractual obligations
to Emelec, absenting himself unjustifiably from Emelec's training sessions throughout
the month of September 2023.
5. Consequently, declare that it was the Player who unilaterally terminated the
Contract without just cause during a protected period of competition, causing serious
harm to Emelec by not being able to replace the Player during the remaining period
of competition.
6. In this regard, declare that Emelec should not pay the Player any sum of money,
neither for the residual value of the Contract from the month of October 2023 until
December 2025, nor the value corresponding to the salary for the month of
September 2023, and in any case, it is the Player who should compensate Emelec for
the unilateral and without just cause termination of the Contract during a protected
period of competition.
7. That, consequently, no sporting sanctions be imposed on Emelec.”
71. Furthermore, on the same date, Emelec provided its comments regarding Sochi’s response
to the claim. In this regard, Emelec denied that there is a case of lis pendens between the
claim lodged by the Player before the Ecuadorian NDRC and the claim lodged by Emelec
before FIFA. According to Emelec, the dispute at stake involves not only the termination of
the Contract but also Sochi’s inducement and, therefore, the case has an international
dimension. Conversely, in the claim lodged by the Player, Emelec solely contested the
Player’s allegations to exercise its right of defence. Hence, there is no identity of the object.
72. In addition, Emelec stated that it had no alternative but to lodge the claim before FIFA, as
it is not possible to lodge a claim against a Russian club in the Ecuadorian NDRC. Moreover,
Emelec contended that there is no identity of the parties, as Sochi is also a party in the
present case. Thus, Emelec argued that FIFA is competent.
73. Emelec also mentioned that Sochi did not provide any evidence to overturn the
presumption of termination inducement to avoid the payment of the transfer fee. In this
regard, Emelec highlighted that the contract between the Player and Sochi was concluded

pg. 22

REF. FPSD-14875

only two days after the termination and 18 days after the failed negotiations between the
parties.
e. Further comments from the Player
74. In his further comments, the Player reaffirmed that he terminated the Contract with just
cause and that there was a decision issued by the Ecuadorian NDRC that obliged Emelec to
comply with the payment obligations towards the Player.
75. The Player highlighted that Emelec did not deny (i) the debt owed to him, (ii) that the Player
had put the club in default and (iii) that the debt was greater than two monthly salaries.
76. Finally, the Player asserted that FIFA is competent to decide the matter, as there is an
international dimension given that the parties have different nationalities, and an
international transfer is involved. Additionally, the Player argued that the Ecuadorian NDRC
was not constituted when he terminated the Contract and, therefore, FIFA is competent.
f. Further comments from Sochi
77. In its further comments, Sochi remarked that Emelec did not dispute (i) the existence of
the ongoing dispute before the Ecuadorian NDRC, (ii) that Emelec timely responded to the
Player’s claim on the merits and (iii) that the present proceedings were initiated long after
the dispute in the Ecuadorian NDRC. Additionally, Sochi reaffirmed that there was an
identity of parties and object, and that Emelec’s stance was controversial, as it was initially
based on the Regulations and then in Ecuadorian law. According to Sochi, only the
Regulations are applicable to this case.
78. Sochi stated again that the Contract was terminated with just cause. However, Sochi
mentioned that Emelec did not prove that Sochi had any negotiations with the Player
between 15 September 2023 and 1 October 2023, or that the Player’s notice was somehow
related to Sochi. Furthermore, Sochi argued that on 16 September 2023 the Player flew to
Ecuador to join Emelec and that Emelec’s logic suggesting that Sochi should have agreed
on the amount offered by Emelec is flawed.
79. What is more, Sochi asserted that it signed the contract with the Player as a free agent and
that it could have never signed it if Emelec had paid him the owed amounts.
g. Final comments from Emelec
80. Emelec stated again that FIFA is not competent to decide on the counterclaim, as there is
no international dimension, and the Player had already lodged a claim before the
Ecuadorian NDRC. According to Emelec, there is no evidence that the Ecuadorian NDRC

pg. 23

REF. FPSD-14875

was not constituted, and in fact the Ecuadorian NDRC confirmed that there is an ongoing
proceeding.
81. Nonetheless, Emelec argued that if FIFA considers it necessary to resolve both claims, it
subsidiarily makes such a request. In this regard, Emelec informed that it has disputed the
competence of the Ecuadorian NDRC, as the counterclaim lodged by the Player could lead
to two decisions regarding the same facts.
82. Regarding its claim, Emelec mentioned that Sochi is not a third party in these proceedings
but a respondent. Thus, Emelec insisted that the parties are not the same in both
proceedings. Additionally, Emelec pointed out that in the claim before the Ecuadorian
NDRC the Player is only requesting the outstanding amounts owed by Emelec, while the
object of Emelec’s claim is (i) the termination of the Contract, (ii) Sochi’s inducement and
(iii) the compensation that should be paid by the Player and Sochi as jointly liable.
Therefore, Emelec asserted that the object of both claims is also not the same.
83. Moreover, Emelec argued that, although the Regulations are applicable to the matter at
stake, it is necessary to consider Ecuadorian law in order to rule on the existence just cause.
Also, Emelec stated that the evidence provided by Sochi regarding the flight tickets does
not demonstrate that the Player actually returned to Ecuador. According to Emelec, the
Player never rejoined the club.
84. Regarding Sochi’s inducement, Emelec stated that it is not for Emelec to prove that there
was inducement, as, in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations, there is a presumption
that a third club induces the player to terminate the contract. In this regard, Emelec
explained that it is for the third club to prove that there was no inducement and Sochi failed
to do so. Emelec further contended that, even if the Player had actually returned to
Ecuador, this does not prove the absence of inducement. Actually, Emelec remarked that
there are several indications that suggested Sochi induced the Player.
h. Additional comments from Emelec on the Interim Regulatory Framework
85. In light of the interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council for
the Regulations and the Procedural Rules on 23 December 2024, the FIFA general
secretariat invited Emelec, on 5 February 2025, to amend its position, should it wish to do
so, exclusively in relation to the possible consequences of the application of the interim
regulatory framework to this case.
86. Emelec made the following comment:
“Por nuestra parte simplemente ratificamos nuestros hechos y fundamentos, los cuales
incluso a pesar del cambio de reglamentación, prueban que existió una conducta de
Sochi para inducir a la ruptura contractual. No se trata de una presunción, sino de
hechos que demuestran dicha inducción, con lo que deberán pagar lo que por derecho

pg. 24

REF. FPSD-14875

le corresponde a Emelec.”
Freely translated into English:
“For our part we simply ratify our facts and rationale, which even despite the change of
regulation, prove that there was conduct by Sochi to induce the breach of contract. This
is not a presumption, but facts proving such inducement, and they will have to pay what
is rightfully due to Emelec.”
i.

Additional comments from the Player on the Interim Regulatory
Framework

87. On 13 February 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player to provide his
additional comments exclusively in relation to the application of the interim regulatory
framework. Nonetheless, the Player did not provide any additional comments.
j.

Additional comments from Sochi on the Interim Regulatory Framework

88. Also on 13 February 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited Sochi to provide its additional
comments exclusively in relation to the application of the interim regulatory framework.
89. First, Sochi argued that the interim regulatory framework validates the rationale presented
in its previous submissions.
90. Additionally, Sochi highlighted that the new version of art. 17 of the Regulations eliminates
(i) the presumption that the new club shall be jointly and severally liable for compensation
due to the former club and (ii) the presumption that the new club induced the player to
breach the contract and shall face sporting sanctions. Now, the consequences shall apply
only if the inducement by the new club is proven.
91. In this regard, Sochi emphasised that there was no inducement from Sochi and that Emelec
did not present any evidence to support this. According to Sochi, in the unlikely event that
the DRC finds that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause, neither several
and jointly liability nor sporting sanctions may be imposed on Sochi.
92. Furthermore, Sochi alleged that the current wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations is
in line with constant jurisprudence, according to which compensation payable is assessed
on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all circumstances. In this case, Sochi stated (i)
that the negotiations held between the parties are irrelevant for the purposes of calculation
and (ii) that Emelec has not suffered any proven damages. Nonetheless, Sochi asserted that
in the event that the Player is deemed to have terminated the Contract without just cause,
the amount of compensation shall not exceed EUR 603,282.50.
93. Lastly, Sochi maintained its previous arguments.

pg. 25

REF. FPSD-14875

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
94. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 7 June 2024 and submitted for decision on 27
March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025 edition
of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable
to the matter at hand.
95. The Chamber then noted that Emelec disputed the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal to
hear the counterclaim. In this regard, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the jurisdiction
of the Football Tribunal over the dispute.
96. First, the Chamber observed that it is undisputed that both Emelec and the Player share
the Ecuadorian nationality. In this regard, the Chamber determined that art. 22 par. 1 lit b)
of the Regulations cannot be applied to the present case, as FIFA’s jurisdiction based on
this provision is contingent on the employment-related dispute having an international
dimension.
97. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that art. 22 par. 1 lit a) of the Regulations establishes
that FIFA is competent to hear “disputes between clubs and players in relation to the
maintenance of contractual stability (articles 13-18) where there has been an ITC request and a
claim from an interested party in relation to said ITC request, in particular regarding the issue
of the ITC, sporting sanctions or compensation for breach of contract”.
98. The Chamber also recalled that, in the present case, the FEF rejected the ITC request
because Emelec argued that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract.
Additionally, the Players’ Status Chamber passed a decision on 13 October 2023 granting
the ITC request, without prejudice to any possible decision from the DRC and/or the
competent decision-making body on the substance of the potential or existing contractual
dispute between the player and his former club (as well as his new club).
99. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that, based on the above provision, the Football
Tribunal clearly has jurisdiction to hear Emelec’s claim. Consequently, given that the
Player’s counterclaim (i) concerns the same facts as the claim, i.e., whether the Player
terminated the Contract with or without just cause and what the consequences of such
termination are, and (ii) was filed within the same dispute, the Chamber determined that it
falls under the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit a).

pg. 26

REF. FPSD-14875

100. In light of the above, 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 par. 1 lit. a) of
the Regulations (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to
deal with the matter at stake.
101. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Admissibility
102. Having stated the above, the Chamber then noted that the admissibility of Emelec’s claim
is disputed by Sochi, and the admissibility of the Player’s counterclaim is disputed by
Emelec. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the admissibility of the Player’s
counterclaim shall be assessed due to a possible failure to meet the formal requirements
pursuant to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules. Lastly, the Chamber noted that, ex officio,
the statute of limitations of the Player’s counterclaim shall also be examined.
103. Therefore, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the admissibility of both the claim and the
counterclaim in turn.
a) Admissibility of Emelec’s claim
104. The Chamber observed that Sochi argued that Emelec’s claim is inadmissible due to lis
pendens, based on the claim filed by the Player with the Ecuadorian NDRC. Sochi stated that
both criteria of lis pendens are fulfilled in this case: identity of parties, as both Emelec and
the Player are parties in both proceedings, and identity of object, as both claims are related
to the termination of the employment relationship.
105. Conversely, Emelec asserted that there is no lis pendens, as the criteria are not met. In this
sense, Emelec stated that in the proceedings before the Ecuadorian NDRC the parties are
the Player and Emelec, while, in this case, Sochi is also a party. Additionally, Emelec
contended that in the claim before the Ecuadorian NDRC, the Player is only requesting the
outstanding amounts owed by Emelec, whereas the object of Emelec’s claim is (i) the
termination of the Contract, (ii) Sochi’s inducement and (iii) the compensation that should
be paid by the Player and Sochi as jointly liable parties.
106. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that on 14 September 2023, the Player lodged a
request for payment before the Ecuadorian NDRC, requesting it to order Emelec to pay him
USD 75,000, which corresponded to three bonuses that should have been paid on 31 March
2022, 30 June 2022 and 31 August 2022.

pg. 27

REF. FPSD-14875

107. The Chamber noted that, contrary to Sochi’s argument, the Player did not request the
Ecuadorian NDRC to establish that he had just cause to terminate the Contract and did not
mention a possible termination but only demanded that the president request payment
from Emelec.
108. The Chamber also remarked that (i) on 4 April 2024, the Ecuadorian NDRC granted Emelec
15 days to pay this amount or to justify whether it had made the payments; (ii) on 19 April
2024, Emelec replied to the claim without disputing the Ecuadorian NDRC’s jurisdiction; (iii)
on 18 September 2024, the FEF informed the FIFA general secretariat that the legal
remedies in that instance had been exhausted and that there were no further actions to
take; (iv) and, nonetheless, on 23 September 2024, Emelec disputed the Ecuadorian NDRC’s
jurisdiction.
109. With this in mind, the Chamber proceeded to analyse whether this case is affected by lis
pendens, i.e., if another deciding body has already initiated proceedings involving
cumulatively and necessarily the same parties and the same object.
a.1) Identity of the parties
110. Regarding the identity of the parties, the Chamber recalled that the criterion is satisfied if
the parties to the disputes are the same. In this regard, the Chamber observed that both
Emelec and the Player are the parties in the Ecuadorian NDRC proceedings, as well as in
the dispute at stake.
111. According to the long-standing jurisprudence, the Chamber wished to remark that the
involvement of Sochi in the proceedings before the DRC does not affect the
aforementioned criterion of the identity of the parties, since the potential liability of such
club is merely accessory to the potential liability of the Player.
112. Therefore, as the parties to both disputes are the same, the Chamber concluded that the
condition of the identity of parties is satisfied.
a.2) Identity of the object
113. Regarding the criterion of the object of the matter in dispute, the Chamber recalled that it
is satisfied if the requests of the two claims are similar.
114. On the one hand, the Chamber noted that in the claim before the Ecuadorian NDRC, the
Player solely requested the payment of USD 75,000 as outstanding remuneration.
Specifically, the Chamber noted that the Player’s demand was based on art. 44 lit g) of the
Regulations of the FEF and art. 7 lit d) of the Ecuadorian NDRC’s Regulations. Therefore, the
Chamber proceeded to analyse the content of these articles.

pg. 28

REF. FPSD-14875

115. In this context, the Chamber recalled that art. 44 lit g) of the Regulations of the FEF
establishes that the delay in payment for more than sixty days of the amounts that the
player should receive from the club constitutes a just cause for terminating the contract.
Additionally, this article stipulates that the competent bodies will establish a period of no
more than 15 days for the club to comply with its obligations.
116. For its part, the Chamber also recalled that art. 7 lit d) of the Ecuadorian NDRC’s Regulations
set forth that the Ecuadorian NDRC’s president will act as a single judge for the player's
request to the club that is in default of payment of two or more monthly salaries, as a
prerequisite for filing a claim for the termination of the contract for just cause, in which
case the period shall be 15 days.
117. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the proceeding initiated by the Player before the
Ecuadorian NDRC was merely a prerequisite for terminating the contract based on
Ecuadorian regulations.
118. The Chamber also noted that Emelec only requested the Ecuadorian NDRC to dismiss the
Player’s claim and to determine that Emelec did not fail to comply with monthly salary
payments.
119. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that, in the claim before FIFA, Emelec is requesting
the DRC to (i) declare that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause, (ii) declare
that Sochi induced the Player to terminate the Contract, (iii) declare that both are jointly
liable, (iv) order the Player and Sochi as jointly liable to pay Emelec compensation due to
the termination and (v) impose sporting sanctions.
120. Additionally, the Chamber observed that the Player is requesting the USD 75,000, but also
(i) the salary for September 2023, (ii) interests and (iii) compensation for breach of contract.
121. Hence, the Chamber observed that, although both claims are indeed related as they arise
from the same employment relationship, it cannot be established that there is an identity
of the object, as the requests from the parties are not similar. In this sense, the Chamber
underscored that in the claim before the Ecuadorian NDRC, the parties did not discuss
whether the Player terminated the Contract with or without just cause, or whether one of
the parties is entitled to compensation. Rather, they only addressed whether the Player
was entitled to certain outstanding amounts.
122. In fact, the Chamber stated that the Player’s claim before the Ecuadorian NDRC was lodged
prior to the termination, and the Player did not even inform the Ecuadorian NDRC that he
terminated the Contract. Additionally, the Chamber recalled that the FEF informed the FIFA
general secretariat that there were no further actions to be taken in the Ecuadorian NDRC
proceedings, which meant no decision would be rendered unless the Player filed the
substantive claim for compensation for breach of contract under Ecuadorian regulations.

pg. 29

REF. FPSD-14875

123. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber determined that there is no risk of having two
contradictory decisions, as it appears that there is no pending proceeding before the
Ecuadorian NDRC, nor has any decision been taken.
124. In this respect, the Chamber wished to clarify that the correspondence sent by the
Ecuadorian NDRC to Emelec on 5 April 2024 cannot be interpreted as a decision, as Emelec
was required either to pay or demonstrate it had paid the amounts. In this sense, Emelec
did not pay the amounts within the granted deadline, and the Ecuadorian NDRC only
acknowledged receipt of the response and then informed the FIFA general secretariat that
the procedure had been exhausted and that there were no further actions to be taken. In
this vein, the Chamber considered that there is no decision that can be executed regarding
the amount claimed in the abovementioned payment demand.
125. Consequently, in the Chamber’s view, the criteria of lis pendens are not fulfilled in the case
at hand and Emelec’s claim is admissible.
b) Admissibility of Player’s counterclaim
b.1) Formal requirements
126. In addition to Emelec’s argument that the Player’s counterclaim is inadmissible due to lis
pendens, the Chamber recalled that it first needed to decide (i) whether the Player filed the
counterclaim in a timely manner and in compliance with all the formal requirements, and
(ii) whether the unsolicited amended requests for relief made by the Player on 31 July 2024
can be accepted.
127. Regarding the requirements of art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber recalled
that the FIFA general secretariat granted the Player a deadline to provide the Bank Account
Registration Form (“BARF”), as the Player failed to submit a copy of it with his counterclaim.
128. In this sense, the Chamber noted that the Player complied with such request, but the BARF
he provided was not fully completed and, therefore, the FIFA general secretariat granted
him a second deadline and then informed the parties that it would be up to the Chamber
to rule upon the admissibility of the claim.
129. In this context, considering that the Player was granted a second deadline to complete his
counterclaim and complied with it on time, the Chamber interpreted that the counterclaim
was completed within the granted time limit. Thus, the Chamber deemed that the
counterclaim was, in principle, admissible.
130. Conversely, regarding the amended requests for relief submitted on 31 July 2024, the
Chamber considered that the Player was not entitled to modify his counterclaim, as he was

pg. 30

REF. FPSD-14875

provided with an initial deadline to file it. Since the counterclaim was incomplete, the FIFA
general secretariat requested him to complete the missing documentation and/or
information but did not allow him to make any amendments to his statement.
131. In this respect, the Chamber decided that the amended requests for relief be considered
inadmissible and that the Player’s requests be limited to those included in the counterclaim
lodged on 23 July 2024.
b.2) Lis pendens and forum shopping
132. Regarding lis pendens, the Chamber referred to its previous reasoning and insisted that it
cannot be established that there is an identity of the object between this dispute and the
claim filed before the Ecuadorian NDRC. As the Chamber mentioned, in the claim before
the Ecuadorian NDRC, the parties did not discuss whether the Player terminated the
Contract with or without just cause, or whether one of the parties is entitled to
compensation.
133. Although the Chamber noted that the Player requested the Ecuadorian NDRC to order
Emelec to pay him the outstanding remuneration, and is requesting the same outstanding
remuneration before FIFA, the Chamber recalled that the FEF informed the FIFA general
secretariat that there were no further actions to be taken in the Ecuadorian NDRC
proceedings, which meant no decision would be made unless the Player filed a new claim.
134. At this point, the Chamber repeated that the Player’s claim before the Ecuadorian NDRC
was, in fact, merely a payment request, which was a prerequisite for demanding the
termination of the Contract. For that reason, on 5 April 2024, the Ecuadorian NDRC
requested Emelec either to make the payment or to justify whether it had already paid
those amounts, but the Chamber stressed that such a requirement did not imply, in any
way, a decision.
135. Additionally, the Chamber remarked that there is no evidence that the Player had filed a
claim related to the termination of the Contract, including the request for the outstanding
payments, i.e., that he had filed the principal claim related to his previous requirement. This
was confirmed by the Ecuadorian NDRC.
136. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the criteria for lis pendens are also not fulfilled for
the counterclaim and that the Player’s counterclaim is, in principle, admissible without
considering the amended requests for relief.
137. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber also considered that the Player did not engage
in unlawful forum shopping. In this sense, the Chamber recalled that the characteristics of
forum shopping were addressed in the Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Player (2023 edition, p. 456-457) as follows:

pg. 31

REF. FPSD-14875

“The final considerations concern the practice known as “forum shopping” – a party
taking the same matter to multiple fora in the hope of obtaining the result that suits its
purposes. The relevant jurisprudence is designed to prevent such behaviour, which is
viewed as illegitimate. A party should not be able to game the system by having the same
argument heard in multiple fora in the hope one of them will hand down the judgment
it wants. For example, a party should not be allowed to ask a national body to confirm
that a contract has been breached without just cause, and then, having obtained a
favourable decision at national level, ask the DRC to set the compensation payable in the
case. The principle against “forum shopping”, namely that a party that has chosen to
have a case heard under one competent jurisdiction cannot then have recourse to
another, is consistently applied.”
138. In this case, the Chamber did not interpret that the Player tried to “game the system” or act
in bad faith, as it was Emelec who filed this claim before FIFA, and he only filed a
counterclaim.
b.3) Statute of limitations
139. As a preliminary matter, the DRC wished to recall that the purpose of a statute of limitations
is to encourage individuals to pursue their rights within a reasonable timeframe and to
protect defendants in terms of legal certainty. Thus, it disincentives that individuals remain
“passive” for extensive periods of time as this can be understood as a lack of interest in
enforcing their rights which is to be interpreted against them.
140. With the above in mind, the Chamber then noted that the amount the Player is claiming
consists of, inter alia, a debt of USD 75,000, which was to be paid in three instalments of
USD 25,000 on 31 March 2022, 30 June 2022 and 31 August 2022. Considering that the
counterclaim was lodged on 23 July 2024, the Chamber pointed out that the two first
instalments would, in principle, be time-barred.
However, the Chamber also highlighted that, on 21 September 2023, within the two-year
limitation period, Emelec explicitly acknowledged the debt claimed by the Player through
his letter dated 14 September 2023, i.e., the USD 75,000 that was to be paid in three
instalments. In this sense, Emelec only asserted that the amount owed was not of a salary
nature, without however disputing the underlying debt.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that on 3 October 2023, Emelec again expressly
acknowledged that it owed a debt to the Player, and this acknowledgment was also made
within the scope of the claim lodged on 7 June 2024.
Moreover, the Chamber stressed that the Player also lodged his payment demand before
the Ecuadorian NDRC on 14 September 2023, also within the two-year limitation period,
demonstrating a proactive interest in asserting his rights within said period.

pg. 32

REF. FPSD-14875

Finally, and as an additional consideration, the Chamber also recalled the Commentary on
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal cited therein, noting that, under specific circumstances, the acknowledgment of
debt may even be considered as the starting point for the applicable statute of limitations.
Based on the above, and bearing in mind the principle of fairness, the Chamber considered
that, in this specific case, the clear and unequivocal acknowledgement of debt made by
Emelec on more than one occasion and within the two-year limitation period, coupled with
the Player’s proactive assertion and defence of his rights under the Contract, interrupted
the two-year period. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the claim for this debt shall be
fully admissible.
b.4) Conclusion
141. In light of the analysis made above, the Chamber decided that the counterclaim of the
Player is fully admissible, except for the amended requests for relief included in the
submission of 31 July 2024.
c. Burden of proof
142. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
143. Having established its competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
144. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
of a club against a player and the player’s new club for compensation, and a counterclaim
of a player against his former club for outstanding remuneration and compensation.

pg. 33

REF. FPSD-14875

145. The Chamber recalled that according to Emelec, the Player terminated the Contract without
just cause, as the amounts owed by the club were not attributable to salaries or paid on a
monthly basis. Additionally, the Chamber noted that Emelec mentioned that the Player had
to terminate the Contract based on Ecuadorian law and not on the Regulations, as the
relationship between the parties did not have an international dimension.
146. The Chamber further recalled that Emelec also argued that the termination of the Contract
was induced by Sochi as a consequence of the failed negotiations between the clubs
regarding the definitive transfer of the Player. Therefore, Emelec contended that the Player,
and Sochi as jointly liable parties, should be condemned to pay compensation equivalent
to the value of the Player, according to the transfer fee that the clubs were negotiating. In
this regard, the Chamber observed that Emelec argued that the value of 70% of the
economic rights of the Player should be considered EUR 1,400,000 or EUR 1,300,000.
Following this reasoning, the compensation would be EUR 2,000,000, or at least, EUR
1,857,142.
147. The Chamber observed that, conversely, the Player argued that Emelec owed him USD
75,000 as outstanding remuneration. Therefore, he stated that he put Emelec in default,
granting a 15-day period to comply with the payment. The Chamber noted that the Player
argued that the club failed to pay him, and, therefore, he terminated the Contract with just
cause. Hence, he is requesting the outstanding remuneration and compensation.
148. Finally, the Chamber saw that Sochi also argued that the Player terminated the Contract
with just cause, as Emelec failed to pay him approximately 5.5 monthly salaries, considering
the bonuses as part of his salary. In addition, Sochi asserted that Emelec failed to establish
any connection between the transfer price requested from Sochi and the damages that
Emelec might have suffered. In any event, Sochi stated that the compensation should be
calculated based on art. 17 of the Regulations and that it should not be jointly liable, as the
club signed the contract with the Player as a free agent.
149. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to analyse whether the Player
had just cause to terminate the Contract and the consequences thereof. The Chamber
contended that if the Player did not have just cause, then the remaining arguments of the
parties would be addressed.
a. Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Contract?
150. The Chamber first wished to clarify that the analysis of whether just cause existed shall be
made based on the FIFA regulations, according to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules. In this
regard, when making this determination, FIFA’s regulations prevail over any national law
chosen by the parties, as 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. Thus, the Chamber determined that it has to consider whether the Player had just
cause according to art. 14bis of the Regulations.

pg. 34

REF. FPSD-14875

151. The Chamber then noted that clause 2 of the Contract stipulated that the Player was
entitled to a monthly salary and to other benefits that were not part of his salary. However,
the Contract did not specify what this monthly salary was.
152. Conversely, the Chamber observed that the Annex established that the Player would
receive certain amounts that were not attributable to his salary: a monthly fee for the use
of his image during the entire Contract, which in 2023 was equivalent to USD 14,000, and
three bonuses of USD 25,000 each. Additionally, the Player was provided with
accommodation.
153. In this regard, in the Chamber’s opinion, it is clear that the amounts stipulated in the Annex
were all part of the Player’s remuneration, including the bonuses, even though they were
not paid on a monthly basis. In this regard, the Commentary on the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Player (2023 edition, p. 151) mentions:
“Concerning bonuses, a recent CAS award confirmed that, in order for a bonus to be
considered an element of salary, it is necessary to establish whether the amount of such
a bonus has been determined or is objectively determinable. If the amount of the bonus
has been explicitly determined or is at least objectively determinable, it shall be
considered as part of the salary.”
154. In this case, the Chamber stressed that there is no doubt that the bonuses were clearly
determined and, therefore, should be considered as part of the Player’s salary.
Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that Emelec acknowledged this debt owed to the Player
and only argued that it was not part of the Player’s salary or paid on a monthly basis. The
Chamber also considered that it would also be remiss not to highlight the periodicity and
relative size of the amounts stipulated in the Annex, and contrast that with the Contract’s
silence on the Player’s monthly salary.
155. Thus, the Chamber considered that Emelec owed the Player USD 75,000 when he sent the
notice of default, as the three bonuses were already due. The Chamber remarked that
these bonuses were supposed to be paid in 2022, meaning that Emelec failed to pay them
for more than a year. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Player received USD
14,000 monthly. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the amount owed to the Player
was equivalent to 5.35 salaries, which far exceeds the two monthly salaries required by art.
14bis of the Regulations and is a significant amount.
156. The Chamber then noted that on 14 September 2023, the Player sent a notice of default
requesting payment of USD 75,000 and granting Emelec 15 days to comply with the
payments, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations. On 21 September 2023, Emelec
acknowledged the debt but argued that the bonuses were not considered salaries and that,
therefore, the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract based on art. 14bis.

pg. 35

REF. FPSD-14875

157. Finally, on 1 October 2023, i.e., 17 days after the Player sent the notice of default, the
Chamber recalled that he terminated the Contract arguing just cause.
158. Based on the above, the Chamber considered that the Player had just cause to terminate
the Contract in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
b. Consequences
159. The Chamber highlighted that, since the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract,
this necessary leads to the conclusion that Emelec’s claim must be rejected. In this regard,
the Chamber decided that the Player shall not be required to pay compensation to Emelec,
as there was no breach of contract. Furthermore, and as a consequence thereof, the
Chamber concluded that it is not necessary to analyse the facts and circumstances to
determine whether it could be established if Sochi induced the Player.
160. Having stated this, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences
of such unjustified breach of contract committed by Emelec. In this context, the Chamber
recalled that the Player requested USD 139,406.71, of which USD 75,000 corresponds to
the unpaid bonus, USD 14,000 to the salary for September 2023, USD 8,406.71 to interest
up to 23 July 2024, and USD 42,000 to compensation.
161. The Chamber first noted that it is undisputed that Emelec failed to pay the bonus for USD
75,000. Therefore, the Chamber decided to award this amount to the Player.
162. Regarding the salary for September 2023, the Chamber recalled that Emelec stated that
the Player is not entitled to it, as he did not work for the entire month. In this sense, the
Chamber observed that it was Emelec itself who acknowledged that it authorised the Player
to travel to Russia to undergo medical tests, which he did on 9 September 2023.
Additionally, the Chamber stressed that the Player returned on 18 September 2023 to
Ecuador and that, on 19 September 2023, Emelec issued a letter informing him that he had
to attend training on 20 September 2023. Furthermore, on 21 September 2023, Emelec
issued a letter in which, inter alia, requested the Player to “continue with the performance
of the Contract”. Finally, the Chamber saw that, according to clause 12 of the Contract,
Emelec was entitled to reduce the salary in case the Player failed to attend training or a
match.
163. In this context, the Chamber considered that (i) there is no evidence to establish that the
Player did not work from 1 September to 8 September 2023; (ii) it is true that the Player did
not attend training from 9 September 2023 to 18 September 2023 as he was not in the
country, but Emelec acknowledged having authorised him and there is no evidence to
establish that the parties agreed that he would not receive his salary during those days,
and; (iii) although there is a letter summoning the Player for training, there is no evidence
to establish that the Player was absent for the trainings sessions between 20 September
2023 until 30 September 2023. Regarding the latter, the Chamber considered that, in any
event, Emelec should have sent a notice to the Player stating that he failed to attend

pg. 36

REF. FPSD-14875

training and informing him that he would be subject to deductions. In the absence of any
evidence in this regard, the Chamber stated that it cannot simply determine that the Player
failed to attend training and is not entitled to his salary.
164. Therefore, the Chamber decided to award the Player USD 14,000 for the salary for
September 2023.
165. The Chamber further noted that the Player is requesting USD 8,406.71 for interest at 5%
p.a. on the outstanding remuneration. Although the Player did not specify his calculations,
the Chamber mentioned that applying interest on each outstanding amount, as from the
day after each due date until 23 July 2024 (as the Player did), amounts to USD 9,103.29.
Additionally, the Chamber highlighted that the Player did not request interest until the date
of effective payment but limited his request to 23 July 2024.
166. Based on principle ne ultra petita, the Chamber decided to award the Player USD 8,406.71
as interest.
167. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by Emelec 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, taking into account the damages suffered, according
to the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances
of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
168. 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 Contract.
169. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Emelec to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i).
170. 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.

pg. 37

REF. FPSD-14875

171. The Chamber noted that the Player terminated the Contract on 1 October 2023, while the
Contract was valid until 30 December 2025. In this regard, the Chamber concluded that the
residual value consists of three salaries for 2023 (USD 14,000 times 3 = USD 42,000), 12
salaries for 2024 (USD 15,500 times 12 = USD 186,000) and 12 salaries for 2025 (USD 17,000
times 12 = USD 204,000). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD
432,000 (i.e. the residual value) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
172. 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.
173. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the new contract with Sochi is valid as from 3
October 2023 until 30 June 2026, for a monthly salary of EUR 30,000 net. The Chamber also
noted that EUR 30,000 is approximately USD 32,113.50. Although the parties established
higher salaries for the following seasons, contingent on the Player fulfilling certain
objectives, the Chamber observed that the Player’s new basic salary was higher than the
salary that he was supposed to receive from Emelec. In this regard, from 3 October 2023
until 30 December 2025, the Player is entitled to, at a minimum, EUR 808,064.51 (EUR
28,064.51 for the prorated amount for October 2023 and EUR 780,000 for 26 months),
which is approximately USD 864,993. Hence, the Chamber considered that the Player fully
mitigated his damages for the overlapping period.
174. Since the new contract was signed on 3 October 2023, the Chamber noted that there were
two days of October during which the contracts did not overlap. Therefore, the Chamber
considered that the mitigated compensation is the prorated amount for October 2023: USD
903,22.
175. 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
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by Emelec, and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
176. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
42,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the Player.
177. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber considered that the Player was entitled to USD 42,903.22

pg. 38

REF. FPSD-14875

as compensation. Nevertheless, as the Player claimed USD 42,000 as compensation, based
on the principle ne ultra petita, the Chamber decided to award the Player USD 42,000 as
compensation for breach of contract. Since the Player did not request any interest, the
Chamber decided not to award any interest on this amount.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
178. 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.
179. 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.
180. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that Emelec must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, 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 Emelec in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
181. Emelec shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
182. 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.
e. Costs
183. 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.

pg. 39

REF. FPSD-14875

184. 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.
185. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.

pg. 40

REF. FPSD-14875

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.

The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, C.S. Emelec.

2.

The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is admissible and rejected.

3.

The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim of the First Respondent /
Counterclaimant, Alejandro Jair Cabeza Jimenez.

4.

The counterclaim of the First Respondent / Counterclaimant is accepted insofar as it
is admissible.

5.

The Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay to the First Respondent / Counterclaimant
the following amounts:
- USD 89,000 as outstanding remuneration;
- USD 8,406.71 as interest;
- USD 42,000 as compensation for breach of contract.

6.

Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

7.

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 Claimant / Counter-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 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.

8.

The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the First Respondent /
Counterclaimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.

pg. 41

REF. FPSD-14875

9.

This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal:

Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

pg. 42

REF. FPSD-14875

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777

pg. 43