Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01610
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 May 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Martin Nicolas
Campaña Delgado
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Angela Collins (Australia), member
Stefano La Porta (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
Club Atletico Independiente, Argentina
Represented by Mr. Ariel Reck
RESPONDENT 1:
Martin Nicolas Campaña Delgado, Uruguay
Represented by Mr. Pablo Terrile
RESPONDENT 2:
Club Al-Batin, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Mr. Nasr El-Din Azzam
Page 2 of 16
REF 20-01610
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 1 March 2018, the Argentinean club, Club Atletico Independiente (hereinafter: the club
or the Claimant), and the Uruguayan player, Mr. Martin Nicolas Campaña Delgado
(hereinafter: the player or the Respondent 1), signed a federative contract valid as from the
date of signature until 30 June 2022 (hereinafter: the federative contract).
2.
Pursuant to the second and the sixth clause of the federative contract, the Claimant
undertook to pay the player a fixed monthly remuneration as follows:
3.
a.
ARS 594,500 between 01.02.2018 and 30.06.2018;
b.
ARS 656,000 between 01.07.2018 and 30.06.2019;
c.
ARS 721,600 between 01.07.2019 and 30.06.2020;
d.
ARS 793,760 between 01.07.2020 and 30.06.2021; and
e.
ARS 873,136 between 01.07.2021 and 30.06.2022.
In addition, the second clause of the federative contract also established that the player
would be entitled to the following bonuses (freely translated to English):
a.
ARS 4,000 per point won in each official match (i.e. first division or “preliminary” to
the first division) in which the player took part;
b.
ARS 3,000 per each friendly match won or drew in which the player took part; and
c.
ARS 7,000 in event of the Claimant’s team being first place, second place or third
place in any national or international championship, as well as of the Claimant’s team
achieving a role in any international championship.
4.
Clause 4 of the federative contract stipulated the following (freely translated to English):
“the parties undertake to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the administrative and
judicial bodies, as appropriate, of Argentina. The player declares to recognize and accept
the international sports regulations that govern the practice of professional soccer and the
regulations of the AFA, the Statute of the Professional Football Player (Law 20.160) and the
Collective Bargaining Agreement 557/09”.
5.
Finally, in the “comments section”, the federative contract also read as follows (freely
translated to English): “the player declares being in agreement with all the amounts
established in clause 6 as monthly salaries. If, during the term of this federative contract,
the player decides to unilaterally terminate his relation, the player shall pay to the club the
Page 3 of 16
REF 20-01610
amount of USD 20,000,000 net as compensation, in accordance with the regulations in
force (Players’ Status – FIFA)”.
6.
On 8 March 2018, the same parties signed a supplementary agreement to the federative
contract, valid as from 1 January 2018 until 30 June 2022 (hereinafter: the supplementary
agreement).
7.
The following financial conditions were described in the supplementary agreement (freely
translated to English):
a.
Monthly salary (cf. art. 4a. of the supplementary agreement):
(i)
ARS 594,500 between 01.01.2018 and 30.06.2018;
(ii) ARS 656,000 during 2018/2019 official season;
(iii) ARS 721,600 during 2019/2020 official season;
(iv) ARS 793,760 during 2020/2021 official season; and
(v) ARS 873,136 during 2021/2022 official season.
b.
Remuneration considering the player’s sports career (cf. art. 4.b of the supplementary
agreement):
(i)
Monthly sports trajectory payment of USD 46,154 between 01.01.2018 and
30.06.2018;
(ii) Monthly sports trajectory payment of USD 50,769 during 2018/2019 official
season;
(iii) Monthly sports trajectory payment of USD 55,846 during 2019/2020 official
season;
(iv) Monthly sports trajectory payment of USD 61,430 during 2020/2021 official
season; and
(v) Monthly sports trajectory payment of USD 67,574 during 2021/2022 official
season.
8.
Additionally, clauses 5 and 6 of the supplementary agreement established that the
abovementioned amounts should be paid gross to the player as well as in Argentinean
currency, taking into account the exchange rate from the day before the day of payment.
Page 4 of 16
REF 20-01610
9.
Furthermore, clause 23 of the supplementary agreement established the following (freely
translated to English):
“Compensation for termination: in accordance with art. 17.1 of the FIFA Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players and in accordance with art. 21 CCT 557/09 AFA-FAAA,
for the premature termination of [the supplementary agreement] by the player’s express
decision or fault, the parties agree in a compensation of USD 20,000,000 (twenty millions
US dollars) as compensation for the premature termination (hereinafter: Compensation for
the Termination). The payment of the correspondents taxes and charges will be under the
player’s responsibility and, jointly, under his new club responsibility in case of signing a new
employment contract, in accordance with art. 17.2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players. In conformity with the decision issued by the Argentinean Football
Association (Bulletin no. 4335 and 4337 from 03.11.2019 and 10.11.2009) the previous
and total payment of the compensation, including the relevant taxes and charges and as
described in the bulletins, is an express condition to the player’s registration with his new
club. The parties establish that the amount of compensation above stipulated was mutually
agreed considering the relevant matters and, specially, as a result of the projections
involving the player’s marked value as well as his economic and federative rights during the
term of the [supplementary agreement]. Consequently, the amount previously agreed shall
not be amortized during the term of [the supplementary agreement] and are integrally due
independent on the date of the termination, due to the fact that it was proportionally
agreed in the present date and as a result of the future possibilities related to the player’s
age and conditions. The parties establish this clause does not grant the player the possibility
of terminating [the supplementary agreement] without just cause, but only determines the
amount of compensation due to the club in case of premature termination of the
[supplementary agreement]”.
10.
Lastly, clause 24 of the supplementary agreement set forth the following (freely translated
to English): “The parties set their addresses in those above indicated, where all the
notifications sent shall be considered as valid, as well as, in case of any judicial divergence,
elect the jurisdiction of the Courts of the City of Avallaneda, renouncing any other that may
arise”.
11.
On 27 April 2020, the Argentinean Football Association (AFA) decided to interrupt the
2020/2021 season due to the COVID-19 pandemic and issued a directive addressing the
relevant sporting consequences.
12.
On 5 May 2020, the player sent the Claimant a first notarized notice requesting payment
of outstanding remuneration in the total of USD 416,963.2, broken down as follows:
a.
USD 40,291.32 as salary of February 2020;
b. USD 76,654.31 as salary of March 2020; and
c.
USD 300,017.57 as total outstanding remuneration from before January 2020.
Page 5 of 16
REF 20-01610
13.
On 29 May 2020, the player sent the Claimant a second notarized notice reiterating his
request for outstanding remuneration, under penalty of filing a claim before the
Argentinean courts.
14.
On 2 June 2020, the parties signed a settlement agreement by means of which the Claimant
acknowledged owing the player the amount of USD 363,038.38, regarding his entitlements
before 31 March 2020, plus USD 91,926 regarding his monthly entitlements of April 2020
(hereinafter: the settlement agreement).
15.
Consequently, as per the settlement agreement, the parties established, inter alia, the
following:
a. the Claimant should immediately pay the player ARS 21,527,849.14, corresponding
to the amount due to the player until March 2020;
b. as a consequence of the COVID pandemic, the player granted the Claimant the
possibility of paying only 50% of his monthly entitlements of March 2020, amounting
to USD 50,000, subject to said payment being made until 30 June 2020 (exchange
rate of 29 June 2020);
c. also as a consequence of the COVID pandemic, the future financial obligations of the
Claimant towards the player should be properly established in an identical basis as
with the other teammates from the first division;
d. in the event of the Claimant fails to pay the amounts regarding April 2020 on time,
the player would have the right to charge the totality of the amounts owed by the
Claimant;
e. the compensation for termination described in clause 23 of the supplementary
agreement was reduced from USD 20,000,000 to USD 2,000,000 net; and
f. the Claimant committed to “make its best efforts” in order to accept any international
offer related to a definitive transfer of the player which involved a transfer fee equal
or greater than USD 2,000,000 net, as well as related to a temporary transfer of the
player which involved a transfer fee equal or greater than USD 300,000 net with an
option to definitively buy the player for at least USD 2,000,000 net.
16.
Additionally, clause 4 of the settlement agreement set forth the following (freely translated
to English): “the parties agree that the breach by the club in time and form of the obligation
assumed with respect to the payment agreed in the second article, corresponding to April
2020, will entitle the player to demand the full collection of his entitlement, being the
discount granted withdrawn, as well as it will enable the latter to initiate a relevant claim in
accordance with art. 13 of CCT 557/09”.
Page 6 of 16
REF 20-01610
17.
On 16 June 2020, the Claimant sent the player a letter informing that the trainings would
resume on 3 August 2020 and that he should adopt all the pertinent measures in order to
be available accordingly (i.e. including being quarantined for 14 days as from his arrival in
Argentina).
18.
On 19 June 2020, the Mexican club, Pumas Club Universidad Nacional A.V. (hereinafter:
the Pumas) sent the Claimant an offer for the temporary transfer of the player during the
season 2020/2021, amounting to USD 300,000, with an option to definitively buy the
player’s federative rights for USD 2,000,000 net. The offer was valid until 30 June 2020.
19.
On 25 June 2020, the player’s intermediary, Mr. German Ramirez (hereinafter: Mr.
Ramirez), sent the Claimant an e-mail reverting to the Claimant’s financial obligations
towards the player, as well as formalizing his intention to join the Pumas and requesting
the Claimant’s assessment in order to conclude the agreement. Mr. Ramirez further
mentioned that the offer was valid until that date because of Pumas’ training schedule.
20.
On 2 July 2020, the player sent the Claimant a third notarized notice by means of which he
granted the club with a 2 days’ deadline in order to proceed the payment of his outstanding
remuneration, broken down as follows:
a.
USD 36,080 as salary of April 2020;
b. USD 55,846 as sports trajectory payment of April 2020;
c.
USD 36,080 as salary of May 2020;
d. USD 55,846 as sports trajectory payment of May 2020; and
e.
USD 183,852 as ‘supplementary annual salary’ related to the second semester of 2018,
first and second semesters of 2019 and first semester of 2020.
21.
In addition, the player also requested the Claimant to provide him with a copy of the
pertinent fiscal activity before the Argentinean authorities. On the same day, Mr. Ramirez
also forwarded a copy of the notarized notice to the Claimant, via e-mail.
22.
On 3 July 2020, the Claimant provided its reply to the notice and stressed, inter alia, that:
(i) the player’s notice did not meet the requirements of Argentinean Law; (ii) the club’s
office was closed due to COVID-19 so that the notice was not properly delivered; (iii) a
significant part of the remuneration charged was already paid by the club after the
settlement agreement; and (iv) the amount of ARS 400,000 would be paid to the player in
good faith, corresponding to the salary of May 2020.
23.
Also on 3 July 2020, the parties exchanged another round of e-mails mentioning, inter alia,
Pumas’ offer and the player’s outstanding remuneration.
Page 7 of 16
REF 20-01610
24.
On 6 July 2020, the Claimant made a partial payment to the player in the amount of ARS
6,067,826.67, equivalent to USD 81,993.
25.
On 14 July 2020, Mr. Ramirez wrote to the club via e-mail and stated that the player did
not accept the unilateral reduction of his monthly salaries for the following months due to
the fact that the club was already in default. Accordingly, Mr. Ramirez granted the club 48
hours to proceed the payment of the outstanding remuneration, as well as he once again
requested the tax documentation to be provided to the player.
26.
On 5 August 2020, the Claimant sent the player a notice and informed that – in line with
the new directives issued by the Argentinean government – the football activities would be
authorized as from 10 August 2020. Consequently, the Claimant requested the player’s
immediate return to Argentina in order to resume his contractual duties.
27.
On 7 August 2020, the player sent the Claimant a fourth notarized notice and requested
payment of his outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 496,558.34, within
the two following days. On the same date, Mr. Ramirez forwarded the notarized notice via
e-mail to the Claimant and informed that the player was travelling in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, and was already in contact with the medical department in order to comply with
the COVID protocols.
28.
On 10 August 2020, the Claimant replied to the player’s notice and informed, inter alia,
that: (i) the player’s notice was not timely received because the club’s office was closed; (ii)
a significant part of the amounts charged by the player were already paid by the club; (iii)
ARS 600,000 were to be paid by the Claimant to the player in good faith, corresponding
to the salaries of June and July 2020; and (iv) the player’s return to Argentina was late and,
hence, that he had to explain his reasons until 17 August 2020.
29.
On 11 August 2020, the Claimant paid the player the amount of ARS 1,000,000 (equivalent
to USD 12,987).
30.
On 12 August 2020, the player notified the Claimant the termination of their employment
relationship via notarized notice and in accordance with the Argentinean Law, with a copy
to AFA.
31.
On 4 September 2020, the player sent AFA a notarized notice informing that he had
terminated his contract with the Claimant and requesting it to update the system in order
to enable him to start a new employment relationship with any other club.
32.
On 18 September 2020, the player lodged a claim against the Claimant before the relevant
Argentinean Labour Courts.
33.
On 19 September 2020, the player signed an employment contract with the Saudi club, Al
Batin Football Club (hereinafter: Al Batin or the Respondent 2), valid as from 30 September
2020 until 30 June 2022.
Page 8 of 16
REF 20-01610
34.
In accordance with item 4 of said employment contract, Al Batin undertook to pay the
player the following remuneration:
a.
Season 2020/2021: USD 900,000, being USD 150,000 on 30 September 2020 and 10
monthly instalments of USD 75,000 due at the end of each month starting from
October 2020 to July 2021; and
b. Season 2021/2022: USD 1,000,000, being USD 250,000 on 30 August 2021 and 10
monthly instalments of USD 75,000 due at the end of each month starting from
September 2021 to June 2022.
35.
On 9 October 2020, the Claimant was notified by the Argentinean authorities about the
claim lodged by the player.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
36.
On 4 November 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
The claim of the Claimant
37.
In his claim, the Claimant requested, inter alia, to be awarded with USD 20,000,000 as
compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of termination.
Alternatively, the Claimant requested the payment of at least USD 3,347,000 – in line with
art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
38.
In support of its allegations, the Claimant argued that the player had prematurely
terminated his relationship with the club without just cause.
39.
To this extent, the Claimant made, inter alia, the following remarks:
a.
Upon the signature of the settlement agreement, the Claimant paid the player ARS
21,527,849.14 and the former acknowledged not having any other amount to claim
until 30 March 2020;
b. Also upon the signature of the settlement agreement, the Claimant agreed that his
salary of April 2020 would be reduced by 50% and that his following entitlements
would be reduced in an identical basis as with the other teammates from the first
division. However, the player did not accept any amicable solution whatsoever;
c.
The player’s notices ignored the content of the settlement agreement and requested
his full remuneration, making it impossible to the Claimant to proceed with the
payment accordingly; and
Page 9 of 16
REF 20-01610
d. The player acted in bad faith and did not respect the provisions of FIFA RSTP nor the
principles described in FIFA’s circular n. 1714. Therefore, the player unilaterally
terminated the employment relationship without just cause.
40.
In continuation, the Claimant recalled art. 14bis of the RSTP as well as CAS’ jurisprudence
in order to state that the deadline granted by the player in his notices (i.e. 48 hours) was
too short. In this regard, the Claimant explained that the termination as announced by the
player was not an ultima ratio measure, especially when considered the context of force
majeure faced by the club due to the pandemic. Along the same lines, the Claimant also
pointed out that the notices sent by the player did not meet the requirements of art. 13,
lit. b, of CCT/09.
41.
Furthermore, the Claimant recalled the principle of exceptio non adimpletis contractus and
to the jurisprudence on the matter. In this respect, the club referred to the notices sent to
the player on 16 July and 5 August 2020, requesting his immediate return to training, and
informed that the player had never provided a valid reason for his late arrival. The Claimant
then clarified that the player did only join the team on 22 August 2020 (i.e. 11 days after
the scheduled date).
42.
Finally, the Claimant concluded that the player breached the contract (or at least breached
it first) by not timely returning to Argentina in order to perform his professional duties and,
therefore, that the player and Al Batin (cf. art.17, para. 2 of the FIFA RSTP) should be liable
for the payment of compensation.
43.
As to the calculation of the compensation, the Claimant initially referred to clause 23 of the
supplementary agreement and requested FIFA to award it compensation in the amount of
USD 20,000,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of termination (i.e. 12 August
2020).
44.
On a subsidiary basis, the Clamant recalled art. 17 of the FIFA RSTP and informed that the
compensation should amount to a minimum of USD 3,347,000, broken down as follows:
a. USD 800,000 equivalent to the transfer fee paid by the Claimant to Club Defensor
Sporting for signing the player;
b. USD 2,447,070 corresponding to the residual value of the player’s contract (i.e. USD
1,112,298 from August 2020 until June 2021, and USD 1,334,772 from July 2021 until
June 2022); and
c. USD 100,000 as replacement cost because the Claimant had to hire a new footballer
in order to substitute the player (i.e. Mr. Sebastian Sosa).
45.
Lastly, the Claimant also claimed that the new salaries earned by the player with Al Batin
should also be taken into account when calculating the compensation.
Page 10 of 16
REF 20-01610
b.
Position of the player
46.
First and foremost, the player challenged FIFA’s competence to hear this dispute, based on
the fact that he had already filed a similar claim against the club before the “Ordinary Labor
Courts of the Judicial Department of Avallaneda, Province of Buenos Aires, Argentine for
the collection of salaries owed and compensation of law”.
47.
In this respect, the player referred to the wording of art. 22, caput of the FIFA RSTP, as well
as to clause 24 of the supplementary agreement, which expressly elected the courts of the
city of Avellaneda, Argentina as competent to hear any dispute arising between the parties.
48.
Additionally, the player recalled the content of the settlement agreement and the principle
of public law in light of the Argentinean Labor Law in order to conclude that FIFA “has not
(sic) jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case”.
49.
Notwithstanding the above, the player also provided his reasons as to the substance of the
matter.
50.
Firstly, the player mentioned that the settlement agreement was null and void, because it
was only signed by the Claimant’s lawyer (i.e. Mr. Ariel Reck) and not by an official
representative with powers to do so. In any event, the player pointed out that the Claimant
did not timely pay all the relevant amounts stipulated thereby.
51.
The player then claimed that, apart from not fulfilling its financial obligations, the Claimant
did not comply with its part of the agreement by declining the Pumas’ offer without a valid
reason. Furthermore, the player stated that the Claimant took advantage of his good faith
and kept postponing the payments and/or making partial remittances without liquidating
the debt in full.
52.
As per the alleged collective agreements concluded with the other teammates (which
supposedly should be accepted by the player in accordance with the settlement agreement),
the player argued that they were all individual agreements and could not be extended (nor
binding) to the others members of the team. In this regard, the player also stressed that at
least other seven or eight players were holding judicial disputes against the club for the
same reasons, i.e. outstanding remuneration and breach of contract.
53.
Then, the player maintained that he had always complied with his contractual obligations
and that, on the contrary of what was indicated by the Claimant, he travelled from Uruguay
to Argentina within the deadline given by the club.
54.
Subsequently, the player informed that Al Batin had nothing to do with the termination of
his employment relationship with the Claimant. Indeed, the player clarified that by the time
he signed with Al Batin, he had already terminated his contractual relationship with the
Page 11 of 16
REF 20-01610
Claimant due to unpaid remuneration and, further, his claim before the Argentinean Labor
Court was already pending.
55.
Finally, the player concluded that the Claimant had never paid him on time and that it owes
him more than USD 300,000 until the present date.
56.
Based on the foregoing, the player requested FIFA to declare itself incompetent to hear the
dispute. On a subsidiary basis, the player requested the Claimant’s claim to be entirely
dismissed since the premature termination of their employment relationship was made with
just cause on 12 August 2020.
c.
Position of Al Batin
57.
In its reply, Al Batin simply argued that FIFA is not competent to hear the dispute.
Accordingly, Al Batin requested FIFA “to fully reject the Claimant’s claim on a procedural
ground for the incompetence”.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
58.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 4 November 2020 and
submitted for decision on 6 May 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the
January 2021 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned
edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
59.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an
Uruguayan player, an Argentinean club and a Saudi club.
60.
Nevertheless, the DRC noted that both the player and Al Batin challenged its competence
to hear the dispute at stake under the auspices of lis pendens, based on the fact that a
previous claim with the same parties and object had already been lodged by the player
before the Argentinean Labor Courts.
61.
At this point, the Chamber firstly recalled that, on the basis of the principle of lis pendens,
a decision-making body is not in a position to deal with the substance of a case, which has
already been brought before and is still pending at another deciding body. Furthermore,
Page 12 of 16
REF 20-01610
the principle of lis pendens is applicable if cumulatively and necessarily the parties to the
disputes and the object of the matter in dispute are identical.
62.
With this in mind, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
documentation brought forward by the player in support of his allegation. By doing so, the
DRC confirmed that, on 18 September 2020, the player started judicial proceedings against
the Claimant before the Ordinary Labor Courts of the Judicial Department of Avallaneda,
Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The player filed sufficient evidence in this respect,
especially the cover letter of the legal proceeding before the Argentinean Labor Court,
under ref. no. 35.317/20.
63.
In addition, the Chamber took due note of the fact that the player filed evidence capable
of demonstrating that the Claimant was dully notified of the existence of said proceedings
and, moreover, that it made itself represented by an attorney at law on 16 October 2020
(i.e. previous to the submission of the claim at stake). To this end, the player provided the
DRC with copies of the submission signed by Mr. Barredo José Luis on behalf of the club,
by means of which the latter acknowledged the existence of the claim lodged by the player
and requested to be notified of its content.
64.
In this respect, the DRC recalled its long-standing jurisprudence according to which the
criterion of the identity of the parties is given if the parties to the disputes are the same.
Having said this, the Chamber observed that both the club and the player are the parties in
the Argentinean proceedings as well as in the dispute at stake in front of the DRC. As to Al
Batin, the members of the Chamber concurred that it was only brought to this case under
the auspices of the consequences found in the RSTP, i.e. the joint liability described in art.
17 of the FIFA RSTP, which is of an accessory nature.
65.
Consequently, the DRC deemed that the condition of the identity of parties is dully met.
66.
Subsequently, the Chamber once again recalled its well-established jurisprudence and
stressed that, the identity of the subject matter is given if the requests of the two claims are
identical. Accordingly, the members of the Chamber went on analysing and comparing the
proceedings before the Argentinean Labor Court and those before FIFA. To this extent, the
Chamber was mindful to determine that both of them are based on the same employment
relationship and deal with the same object, i.e. the player’s outstanding remuneration and
request for payment of compensation for breach of contract.
67.
In view of the above, the Chamber also remarked that the joint liability of Al Batin is an
accessory to the principal (labour) relationship and, hence, that the object of the two
disputes is equivalent.
68.
Based on the aforementioned considerations, the DRC unanimously concluded that it is not
in a position to deal with the matter at hand as this dispute has already been brought before
a local court in Argentina is still pending, having consequently been affected by the principle
of lis pendens.
Page 13 of 16
REF 20-01610
69.
For the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber also wished to outline that all
the written agreements concluded by the parties (i.e. the federative contract, the
supplementary agreement and the settlement agreement) referred either to the
competence of the Argentinean judicial bodies or to the local ordinary proceedings, law
and regulations.
70.
Therefore, in line with art. 22, caput of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition of February 2021), the DRC determined that the claim is inadmissible.
71.
Lastly, the Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the
maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes
between a club and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that
no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
72.
Likewise, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and
decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.
Page 14 of 16
REF 20-01610
IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club Atletico Independiente, is inadmisible.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15 of 16
REF 20-01610
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 16 of 16