DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14124
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Jordi Campoy Pérez
BY:
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Jordi Campoy Pérez, Spain
Represented by Raúl Muriel Cordón
RESPONDENT:
POMEZIA CALCIO 1957, Italy
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14124
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2022, the Spanish player, Jordi Campoy Pérez (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) and the Italian club, POMEZIA CALCIO 1957 (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the private contract), valid
as from 1 September 2022 until the end of the 2022/2023 season in Italy.
2.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the
2022/2023 season in Italy came to an end on 30 June 2023.
3.
Under paragraph 6 of the private contract, the club undertook to pay to the player a
monthly salary of EUR 3,000, from September 2022 to June 2023, payable by the 15 day of
the subsequent month.
4.
On 18 October 2022, the parties entered into a federative employment contract
(hereinafter: the federative contract), valid as from 1 September 2022 until 30 June 2023.
According to clause 1 of the federative contract, the club undertook to pay to the player a
monthly salary of EUR 1,000 during the term of the contract (10 monthly salaries in total).
5.
By means of the communication sent by the player to the club on 8 March 2024, the player
put the club in default of payment in the amount of EUR 3,000, thereby granting the club a
deadline of 10 days to cure its breach.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
On 19 March 2024, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of the Football
Tribunal, requesting to be awarded outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 3,000,
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 July 2023 until the date of effective payment.
7.
In his claim, the player argued that despite having entered into the private contract, the
club failed to pay his salary of June 2023.
b. Position of the Respondent
8.
In its reply, the Respondent argued that the parties did not enter into the private contract
but only the federative contract. In this respect, the Respondent maintained that the
private contract does not count with the signature of the club’s president nor of the club’s
legal representative and that the private agreement provided by the Claimant does not
hold the form of a federative contract which is necessary for its presentation to the Italian
association.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14124
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
9.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter 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 19 March 2024 and
submitted for decision on 30 April 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
March 2024 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
10. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players; February 2024 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Spanish player and an Italian
club.
11. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 19 March 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
12. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
13. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14124
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
14. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter
and underscored that the key issue in the case at hand is whether the parties entered or
not into the private contract. Upon a careful analysis thereof, the Chamber noted that it
contains all the essential elements of a contract: identification of the parties, subject matter
/ obligations and rights of the parties, duration and the consent to be bound thereto
(signature, in casu).
15. As for the allegations of the Respondent that the private contract (1) does not hold the
signatures of the president / legal representative of the club, the Chamber observed that
the private contract states that it is actually signed by the club’s president and it holds a
valid signature and stamp that even coincide with the president’s signature under the
federative contract and, consequently, the Chamber determined that argument of the club
in this respect needs to be rejected; (2) does not hold the form of a federative contract
which is mandatory – in this respect, the Chamber explained an employment contract does
not require a specific form for it to be valid, it being possible to enter into an employment
contract if the essential elements of a contract exist, as they do in the present case and,
thus, the Chamber decided that the argument of the club in this regard is equally rejected.
16. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the parties did enter into the private
agreement, which shall serve as legal basis for the Claimant’s claim.
ii. Consequences
17. In view of the above, it having been established that the Claimant is entitled to a monthly
salary of EUR 3,000 during September 2022 and June 2023 and considering that the
Respondent has not provided evidence of having performed the relevant payment in
favour of the Claimant, the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall be ordered to pay
to the Claimant the amount of EUR 3,000 as outstanding remuneration by virtue of
application of the legal principle pacta sunt servanda.
18. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 16 July 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Overdue payables – art. 12bis of the Regulations
19. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days
without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the Regulations.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14124
20. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the player put the club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and granted the club
a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
21. Accordingly, the Chamber confirmed that the club had delayed a due payment without a
prima facia contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations was met in the case at hand.
22. The Chamber further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has
competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above and bearing in mind
that this is the first offense by the club within the last two years, the Chamber decided to
impose a warning on the club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
23. In this connection, the Chamber highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as
an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
27. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14124
28. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Jordi Campoy Pérez, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, POMEZIA CALCIO 1957, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- EUR 3,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 July 2023 until
the date of effective payment.
3.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent cf. art. 12bis of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14124
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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
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
pg. 8