Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13973
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 June 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Reginald Jacob Cannon
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Boavista FC, Portugal
Represented by Joao Filipe Lobao
FIRST RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Reginald Jacob Cannon, USA
Represented by Mario Paiva
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Queens Park Rangers FC, England
Represented by Centrefield LLP
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13973
I. Facts of the case
Introduction
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
a. The Portuguese club, Boavista FC (hereinafter: Boavista or Claimant/CounterRespondent), affiliated to the Portuguese Football Federation (FPF).
b. The American player, Reginald Jacob Cannon (hereinafter: Player or First
Respondent/Counter-Claimant), born on 11 June 1998.
c. The English club, Queens Park Rangers FC (hereinafter: QPR or Second Respondent),
affiliated to the English Football Association (The FA).
2.
Boavista, the Player and QPR are hereinafter jointly referred to as Parties.
Employment relationship between Boavista and the Player
3.
On 8 September 2020, Boavista and the Player concluded an employment agreement valid for
5 seasons, namely from the same date until 30 June 2025 (hereinafter: Contract). Accordingly,
the Player was 22 years old when the Contract was signed.
4.
Under the Contract the Player was entitled to the following:
a. Net remuneration per season, to be paid in 10 equal monthly instalments by the 5th
day of each subsequent month “from 5 October 2020 until 5 July 2021”:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Season 2020/2021: EUR 175,000.
Season 2021/2022: EUR 400,000.
Season 2022/2023: EUR 450,000.
Season 2023/2024: EUR 500,000.
Season 2024/2025: EUR 550,000.
b. Various bonuses for performance.
c. Yearly housing allowance of EUR 5,000 net.
d. Yearly transportation allowance of EUR 2,000 net.
5.
Clause 9 of the Contract reads as follows:
“1. This contract shall be interpreted in accordance with FIFA regulations, namely the ‘FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players’ (2019 edition).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13973
2. As parties hereto agree to elect, for situations not resolvable under 1. of this clause, as the case
may be, the Player Status Committee, the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the Court of
Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, the language of the proceedings shall be English, and if the
player is the appellant, both parties shall accept the appointment of a single judge, with residence
in Switzerland, each party waiving the right to any other court, however privileged it may be, as
the competent body to settle any doubts, steps or controversies arising from this contract.”
Exchange of notices and termination of the Contract
6.
On 9 July 2021, the Player via two separate letters placed Boavista in default of payment of two
salaries, granting a deadline of three business days for Boavista to cure its default. One letter
was signed by the Player himself and the other by his legal representative.
7.
On 6 March 2023, the Player via two letters placed Boavista in default of payment of two
salaries, granting a deadline of three business days for Boavista to cure its default. One letter
was signed by the Player himself and the other by his legal representative.
8.
On 22 May 2023, the Player via two letters placed Boavista in default of payment of two salaries,
granting a deadline of three business days for Boavista to cure its default. One letter was signed
by the Player himself and the other by his legal representative. The letter signed by the Player
was delivered to Boavista on Wednesday 24 May 2023, as per the stamp included therein by
Boavista.
9.
On 29 May 2023, Boavista paid EUR 91,400 to the Player by bank transfer. The money was wired
to the Player’s bank account in the USA.
10. On 22 June 2023, the Player sent to Boavista a letter dated 21 June 2023 in which he stated that
he had not been paid “his dues” within the deadline of three days as listed in his default notice,
and accordingly he declared the Contract terminated on the grounds of art. 43 of the
Portuguese Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter: CBA). Said letter was equally sent to
the Portuguese League and Portuguese Players’ Union.
11. On 29 June 2023, Boavista sent a letter to the Player dated 28 June 2023 in which it denied
owing him any amounts, contextually forwarding to him the relevant receipts for payment of
EUR 91,400.
12. On 12 July 2023, the Comissao Arbitral Paritaria (Parital Arbitration Commission; hereinafter:
CAP per its Portuguese acronym) issued a decision whereby it recognized “that the Player
Reginald Jacob Cannon is entitled to release from the sports contract”. Said decision particularly
outlines the following, per the translation provided by Boavista:
“In view of the current legal rules on employment contracts for sportspersons, the CAP’s scope of
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13973
assessment in a case such as this is limited to simply establishing whether the communication
sent by the [Player] to [Boavista] was formally correct, and it has no powers to assess the merits
of the labour law grounds invoked as the basis for termination.”
The new employment relationship between the Player and QPR
13. On 18 September 2023, QPR contacted Boavista via e-mail and stated as follows:
“Please could you provide me with a letter on club headed paper confirming that [the Player’s]
contract with Boavista has expired (including the expiry date) and he is free to register for us with
no compensation payable.
If you could do this today that would be great, many thanks.”
14. On the same date, Boavista replied to QPR and stated as follows:
“I come to your contact on behalf of Boavista Futebol SAD regarding the hereunder presented email.
The said Player unlawfully terminated the sport employment contract with Boavista Futebol SAD
and compensation for damages will be requested in FIFA Tribunal as per FIFA Regulations.”
15. On 19 September 2023, QPR wrote to Boavista via e-mail and stated as follows:
“We understand the Player did terminate his contract with Boavista Futebol SAD but this was done
following Boavista unlawfully failing to pay him at least two monthly salaries by their due dates,
so he therefore had just cause to terminate. We are therefore surprised to note you are saying the
termination was unlawful and that Boavista will claim compensation for damages as a result of
this termination. Would you please therefore confirm the basis on which you contend the Player
did not have just cause to terminate? We would be grateful for your urgent response.”
16. On the same date, QPR entered a transfer instruction in the FIFA Transfer Matching System
(TMS) to engage the Player under “Engage permanently (out of contract)”. Said transfer
instruction was recorded with number TMS 750934. In doing so, QPR uploaded a certified copy
of the decision rendered by CAP as proof of termination of the Player’s last employment
relationship.
17. Following the request by The FA for the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC), the
Player was ultimately registered with QPR on 29 September 2023 as authorized under very
exceptional circumstances by the FIFA Players’ Status Department pursuant to art. 6 par. 3 a),
in fine, of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13973
18. In the same transfer instruction in TMS, QPR uploaded a copy of the employment contract
executed between QPR and the Player (hereinafter: New Employment Agreement), which was
dated 25 September 2023 and contained, inter alia, the following arrangements:
a. Duration: from 25 September 2023 to 30 June 2027.
b. Remuneration: a basic wage due as follows:
•
GBP 180,000 per annum payable by monthly instalments in arrears from 25
September 2023 to 30 June 2024;
•
GBP 550,000 per annum payable by monthly instalments in arrear from 1 July
2024 to 30 June 2025;
•
GBP 725,000 per annum payable by monthly instalments in arrear from 1 July
2025 to 30 June 2026;
•
GBP 725,000 per annum payable by monthly instalments in arrear from 1 July
2026 to 30 June 2027.
c. Various bonuses for performance.
d. An increase in the Player’s earnings in case QPR was promoted, or a reduction in case
it was relegated.
e. One-time payment of GBP 8,000 as reimbursement of relocation fees.
f.
Loyalty payments of GBP 160,000 on 30 June 2026 and GBP 235,000 on 30 June 2027,
also payable in case of a transfer of his registration.
g. 10% of any transfer fee received by QPR in case of the Player’s transfer.
h. Several payments to the Player’s agent on the Player’s behalf, as follows:
“[QPR] shall make payments to the Player’s Intermediary, Lyle Yorks, on the Player’s behalf for
services to the player as follows:
£3,500 within 7 days of the Player’s registration with [QPR] being fully ratified by the EFL and FA
and [QPR] be in receipt of the Player’s ITC
Followed by:
£33,500 on 5 September 2024
Thereafter, for seasons 2025/26 and 2026/27, An amount equal to 5% of the Player’s basic salary
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13973
on:
5 September 2025 (for the period 1 July 2025 to 31 December 2025)
5 February 2026 (for the period 1 January 2026 to 30 June 2026)
5 September 2026 (for the period 1 July 2026 to 31 December 2026)
5 February 2027 (for the period 1 January 2027 to 30 June 2027)
In each case the Payments are conditional upon the Player remaining a contracted player of [QPR]
on the dates payments fall due and this existing Agreement remaining in force (ie the Player has
not signed a new Agreement with [QPR]).
All payments remain due should the Player be out on loan.
The Player acknowledges and agrees that all payments made by [QPR] under this Clause shall be
deemed to be income of the Player and shall be declared on the Player’s P11D (or such other form
as may amend or replace the P11D from time to time).”
19. On 7 December 2023, Boavista wrote to QPR and stated that the Player had breached the
Contract and owed compensation to Boavista, to which QPR was jointly and severally liable
under art. 17 of the RSTP, for an amount of EUR 2,107,424.82. Accordingly, Boavista demanded
payment of said amount from QPR within 10 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
20. On 8 March 2024, Boavista lodged a claim against the Player and QPR before the Football
Tribunal. Such claim was registered under ref. no. FPSD-13973.
21. On 19 March 2024, the Player lodged a parallel claim against Boavista before the Football
Tribunal. Such claim was registered with ref. no. FPSD-14117.
22. On 19 March 2023, for the sake of good procedural order and based on art. 21 par. 3, first
sentence of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: Procedural
Rules), the FIFA general secretariat informed the Parties under the case FPSD-14117 that the
parallel claim lodged by the Player would be joined with the existing case under FPSD-13973
and treated as a counterclaim. Contextually, the Parties were awarded the opportunity to file
their respective positions, and the case FPSD-14117 was closed.
23. The Parties’ respective positions are outlined in continuation.
a. Boavista’s claim
24. As a starting point, Boavista argues that the Player’s default notice of May 2023 was unclear as
it referred in general terms to only two salaries. Accordingly, Boavista is of the opinion that the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13973
Player admitted that all salaries due by 5 March 2023 had been paid and that his request only
related to salaries due in April and May 2023.
25. In this regard, Boavista argues that it proceeded to pay the sums due to the Player within the
three business days granted in the notice in question. Accordingly, it considers that the Player
terminated the Contract without just cause, as the allegations put forward by him to justify the
termination were not correct. Boavista also submits that the Player accepted payment of the
allegedly unpaid wages but proceeded to terminate the Contract almost a month after the
default notice had been sent.
26. Boavista further contends that it has always fulfilled its contractual obligations to pay the
Player’s salaries. It claims contextually that the salary payments were always made directly to
the Player, who accepted them without protest. Boavista further explains that the Player’s
acceptance of the payments showed his recognition that they were effectively made and
constituted his monthly remuneration.
27. Boavista further submits that the Player’s conduct constitutes an abuse of rights, as the Player’s
initial acceptance of the payments, which was later converted into his termination of the
Contract, is contrary to the principles of trust and good faith that should be present in legal
transactions. Boavista contends that the Player is estopped from claiming any further amount
as his actions created a legitimate expectation that he would not exercise his right to terminate
the Contract under the doctrine of estoppel.
28. In this regard, Boavista relied on similar cases and jurisprudence, such as the decision of the
FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in the matter involving the player Ndubuisi Emmanuel
Okoye and the Maltese club Sirens FC. Boavista argues that the Player’s conduct in waiting more
than one month after receiving his salary before terminating his Contract is similar to the
circumstances of the aforementioned case, where the player’s delay in seeking redress from
FIFA was considered to create a legitimate expectation of acceptance of the club’s position.
29. In light of the foregoing, Boavista requests that the Player and QPR be ordered to pay
compensation of EUR 2,107,424.82 for breach of contract in accordance with art. 17 of the RSTP,
calculated on the basis of all the remuneration that the Player would have received up to the
end of the Contract had he fulfilled it. The compensation was calculated as follows:
- The gross salary for the month of June 2023 of EUR 79,477.52.
- The gross amount corresponding to the 2023/2024 season, totalling EUR 964,595.80.
- The gross amount corresponding to the 2024/2025 season, totalling EUR 1,063,351.50.
- Therefore, the total gross amount of the compensation requested by Boavista amounts to
EUR 2,107,424.82.
30. It is important to note that Boavista considers the compensation on the basis of the gross
remuneration, as taxes withheld are in its opinion considered part of the employee’s salary paid
by the employer on behalf of the employee. Boavista argues that compensation should be
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13973
calculated on the basis of gross remuneration, taking into account the applicable withholding
tax rate.
31. In relation to QPR, Boavista submits that they induced the Player to breach the Contract and
that they should be held jointly and severally liable and responsible for paying the
compensation.
32. Finally, Boavista submits that sporting sanctions should be imposed on both the Player and
QPR for the breach of contract and inducement as follows: a six-month ban on the Player from
playing in official matches and a ban on QPR from registering new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two full and consecutive registration periods.
33. Boavista requested the following relief:
“I. [Boavista] respectfully request to the Dispute Resolution Chamber recognize that the Player
breach the [Contract] unlawfully.
II. [Boavista] respectfully request to the Dispute Resolution Chamber to recognize that [Boavista]
is entitle to receive a compensation according to Art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations in the residual
amount of the contract which amounts to €2.107.424,82 (two million one hundred and seven
thousand four hundred and twenty-four euros and eighty-two cents), plus interest from 22th June
2023;
III. [Boavista] respectfully request to the Dispute Resolution Chamber recognize that [QPR]
induced the Player to breach the [Contract] unlawfully.
IV. [Boavista] respectfully request to the Dispute Resolution Chamber to recognize that [QPR] is
found joint liable responsible to pay to [Boavista] a compensation according to Art. 17 of the FIFA
Regulations in the residual amount of the contract which amounts to €2.107.424,82 (two million
one hundred and seven thousand four hundred and twenty-four euros and eighty-two cents), plus
interest from 22th June 2023;
V. To the Player a six-month restriction on playing in official matches, considering the aggravating
circumstances of the case at stake;
VI. To the [QPR] a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for
two entire and consecutive registration periods.
The Decision shall be executed in accordance with Art. 24 bis FIFA RSTP and also include a decision
about the consequences of the clubs failure to pay the amounts according to request for relief no.
II or IV.”
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13973
b. The Player’s counterclaim
34. In his counterclaim, the Player alleges that, despite the conclusion of the Contract, Boavista
continuously failed to pay his monthly salary on time, despite verbal complaints and formal
notices to this effect.
35. The Player explains that the CBA governs his employment relationship with Boavista, and that
art. 43 no. 1 lit. a) and no. 2 of the CBA states that failure to pay remuneration on time for a
period exceeding 30 days entitles a player to terminate a contract with just cause, provided that
said player notifies his intention to terminate the contract and the club does not pay within
three working days. In addition, the Player sustains that art. 43.1 lit. b) of the CBA provides that
a player is also entitled to terminate the contract for just cause if a club fails to pay his salary
on time, regardless of the period of delay.
36. It is to be noted that the Player however did not file a copy of the CBA in these proceedings.
37. The Player goes on to state that he has fulfilled his obligations under the Contract, whereas
Boavista has continuously breached it by failing to pay his salaries on time. The Player further
alleges that Boavista’s failure to meet its financial obligations and its continued delay in paying
his salaries has undermined the trust and confidence necessary to maintain the employment
relationship.
38. In light of the foregoing, the Player submits that the late payment of his salary constitutes a just
cause for termination of the Contract, as set forth in art. 14 and 14bis of the RSTP. He further
argues that he had taken all necessary steps to collect the outstanding amounts, including
sending formal notices to Boavista. The Player also submits that the CAP’s decision recognised
his right to terminate the Contract for just cause.
39. In light of the foregoing, the Player submits that he had just cause to terminate the Contract
and seeks the recognition of the termination, the payment of the full Contract amount, the
compensation for the residual value of the Contract, the damages caused, and 7% interest per
annum on the amounts due. He also requested that Boavista pay all costs and legal fees
incurred in connection with the matter.
40. The Player requested the following relief:
“i. That the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal accepts the present claim
and accepts that FIFA has jurisdiction to rule on the matter and makes an award in favour of the
[Player] on the grounds set out herein;
ii. Acknowledging the termination of the [Contract] for just cause;
iii. Orders [Boavista] to pay to the [Player] the full amount of the [Contract];
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13973
iv. Orders [Boavista] to pay compensation equal to the remaining value of the terminated
of the terminated Contract;
v. The condemnation of [Boavista] to pay for all damages caused to the Player until full payment;
vi. the condemnation of [Boavista] to pay 7% interest per year from the due date until the date of
actual payment by [Boavista];
vii. In any event, order [Boavista] to pay all costs of the proceedings and all legal fees and costs
incurred by the Claimant in connection with the present matter in an amount not less than EUR
10,000.00;
viii. In any event, order [Boavista] to pay all costs of the proceedings and all legal fees and costs
incurred by the Claimant in connection with the present matter in an amount not less than EUR
30,000.00 to be paid by [Boavista] to the [Player];
ix. To impose any other possible sanctions on [Boavista] (individually or collectively)”.
c. Boavista’s reply to the Player’s counterclaim
41. In its reply to the Player’s counterclaim, Boavista largely reiterated its position as set out in its
statement of claim.
42. Boavista asserts that the Player’s claim is unsustainable and unfounded in that it is also unclear
and lacks specificity, making it impossible to determine which salaries are in arrears and the
amounts owed. Furthermore, Boavista argues that the Player’s claim contains general requests
without specifying the amounts or damages sought, and therefore the Football Tribunal cannot
substitute for the Player by awarding requests that he has not made.
43. In continuation, Boavista outlines that the Player misinterprets the decision of the CAP, which
only assessed the formal correctness of the communication sent by the Player to Boavista and
did not decide on the merits in the Player’s favour.
44. Boavista equally submits that the legal arguments put forward by the Player in his claim are
incorrect, except for the argument concerning the non-payment of remuneration for a period
of more than 30 days, which entitles a player to terminate a contract with just cause if a club
does not pay within three working days. Nevertheless, Boavista argues that they have paid all
salaries owed to the Player within the specified time frame and that he has accepted these
payments without protest.
45. Accordingly, Boavista reiterates that the Player’s termination of the Contract for cause is not
justified, as Boavista has fulfilled all its contractual obligations and the Player’s complaints are
post factum and unfounded. Accordingly, Boavista requests that the Player’s counterclaim is
dismissed, and its own claim upheld.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13973
d. The Player’s reply to Boavista’s claim
46. In his reply to Boavista’s claim, the Player submitted additional arguments in support of his
position that he had had just cause to terminate the Contract, which did not form part of his
initial position. In doing so, he raised the issues explained in continuation.
Tax issues
47. The Player argues that the Contract stated that the salaries were net amounts. Despite this,
Boavista never paid him the full amounts and treated the salaries as if they were gross
amounts.
48. As a result, the Player claims he was responsible for paying the taxes on his salaries and
received notifications from the Portuguese tax authorities demanding payment of taxes for the
years 2021 and 2022. He details these amounts as follows:
“Consequently, [Boavista] should have paid at least € 83.906,78 to the Player pursuant to his
salaries from January 2021 to December 2021.
That amount should have been paid in installments monthly by [Boavista] throughout the year
of 2021 beginning on January, that never happened.
Pursuant to the year of 2022 the Portuguese IRS notified the Player demanding the payment of €
68.325,13 plus € 296,54 in costs. (…).
Additionally, in reference to the year of 2022 the Portuguese IRS also demands the amount of €
2.175,50 plus € 21,80 in interests plus € 42,00 in costs. (…).
Finally, also in reference to the 2022 the Portuguese IRS also demands the payment of € 247,35.
(…).”
49. According to the Player, Boavista’s failure to pay the full amounts under the Contract resulted
in the Player owing a significant sum to the Portuguese tax authorities. He further submits to
have requested, to no avail, Boavista to pay the taxes on his behalf, as it was its obligation to
do so under the Contract. Accordingly, the Player seeks compensation from Boavista for the
taxes owed, which amounts to a minimum of EUR 155,015.10.
50. As a consequence, the Player alleges that Boavista’s failure to pay the taxes on his behalf further
demonstrates its breach of the Contract and its disregard for its obligations towards the Player.
It followed in the Player’s view that the termination of the Contract took place with just cause
in that it was influenced by Boavista’s failure to pay the taxes, which jeopardized his financial
situation and undermined his value as a professional.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13973
Payment issue
51. Boavista alleged in its submissions that it transferred EUR 91,400 to the Player as payment for
the overdue salaries of April and May 2023. However, the Player contests this claim and states
that Boavista did not make the payment within the required 3 working days.
52. In support of his position, the Player states that the transfer was ordered on a later date than
the one claimed by Boavista, namely 31 May 2023. What is more, the Player is of the opinion
that Boavista’s own documents indicate in the Player’s view that the issue date of the alleged
transfer was different from what Boavista claimed.
53. Furthermore, upon careful analysis of the documents submitted by Boavista, the Player adds
that the alleged transfer was not made by Boavista itself, but by a third entity with no known
connection to Boavista. To this effect, the Player never gave consent for his salaries to be paid
by a third party, nor was he informed of such arrangement.
54. Lastly, the Player asserts that Boavista’s claim of payment is false and unsupported by evidence.
He maintains that Boavista did not fulfil its payment obligations and continued to default on
the salaries owed, which support his claim that Boavista failed to comply with its payment
obligations and further justify his termination of the Contract with just cause.
Portuguese Law and the CBA
55. In continuation, the Player explains that the Contract explicitly states that it is subject to
Portuguese law and the CBA approved by the National Portuguese Professional Football Players
Union and the Portuguese Professional Football League. Accordingly, the CBA establishes
certain rights and obligations for both clubs and players. For instance, art. 12 of the CBA states
that a club must treat and respect the players as collaborators, pay the agreed remuneration
in a timely manner, provide good working conditions, facilitate the exercise of trade union
rights, compensate the players for work accidents and occupational illnesses, and comply with
all other obligations arising from the employment contract and the governing norms.
56. Along these lines, the Player reiterates that Boavista failed to fulfil its obligation to pay the
salaries in a timely manner, which is a clear violation of the CBA. In addition, art. 36 of the CBA
specifically states that the monthly remuneration must be paid by the 5th day of the subsequent
month, and failure to comply with this obligation constitutes default by the employer.
57. The Player also points out that Boavista’s non-payment or late payment of remuneration
constitutes just cause for termination of the contract, as recognized by the jurisprudence of the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the provisions of the CBA.
58. The Player therefore amended his request for relief as follows:
“i. That the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Tribunal accepts the present answer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13973
and enforces FIFA jurisdiction as competent to rule on the matter and issues an award in favor of
the Respondent (Player) on the grounds herein;
ii. The recognition of the termination with just cause of the [Contract] by the Player;
iii. [Boavista]’s Claim shall be dismissed;
iv. Condemnation of [Boavista] to pay the full contract amounts to the Player regarding:
a. Season 22/23 – Net amount of EUR 135,000 (gross EUR 270,000.00)
b. Season 23/24 – Net amount of EUR 500,000 (gross EUR 1,000,000.00)
c. Season 24/25 – Net amount of EUR 550,000 (gross EUR 1,100,000.00)
Total amount: Net amount of EUR 1,185,000 (gross EUR 2,370,000.00)
v. Condemnation of [Boavista] to pay the taxes supported by the Player regarding his taxes of the
years 2021 and 2022 in a minimum amount of EUR 155,015.10 (One hundred and fifty-five
thousand fifteen euros and ten cents);
vi. The condemnation of [Boavista] to pay the compensation equal to the residual value of the
contract that was terminated;
vii. The condemnation of [Boavista] to pay for all the damages created to the Player until full
payment;
viii. The condemnation of [Boavista] to pay 7% interest per year as of the due date until the date
of actual payment by [Boavista];
ix. In any event, to order [Boavista] to cover all costs of the proceedings and to bear all the legal
fees and costs incurred by the Player in connection with the present matter on an amount not
lower than EUR 10,000.00;
x. In any event, to order [Boavista] to cover all costs incurred with attorney’s fees on an amount
not lower than EUR 30,000.00 to be paid to the Player by [Boavista];
xi. To apply any other possible sanctions to [Boavista] (individually or collectively). “
e. QPR’s position
59. QPR rejects Boavista’s claim. In doing so, it supports the Player’s contention that a club’s
persistent failure to pay a player’s salary on time gives the player the right to terminate the
relevant contract for just cause. QPR points out that Boavista has a history of consistently
failing to pay the salaries of its players, which can be seen from the 2021/2022 season onwards.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13973
60. QPR then argues that Boavista’s claim for compensation is misconceived. QPR submits that,
even if Boavista was entitled to compensation, the amount claimed by Boavista is grossly
disproportionate and was not supported by any evidence. QPR submits that Boavista’s claim is
an opportunistic attempt to profit from the Player’s decision to terminate the Contract for just
cause and seek employment elsewhere. Finally, QPR submits that Boavista’s claim for
compensation is incorrectly calculated and unsubstantiated.
61. In this respect and in support of this position, QPR refers to the following case law:
•
CAS 2006/A/1180: non-payment or late payment of remuneration by an employer may
constitute just cause for termination of a contract. If an employer fails to meet its
payment obligations, the employee can no longer be expected to continue to be bound
by the contract.
•
CAS 2008/A/1520: The residual value of the prematurely terminated contract was
deducted from the compensation due to the claimant club. This deduction was made
because the club saved the costs it would otherwise have had to pay to the player in
terms of salary and bonuses for the remaining period of the contract.
•
CAS 2015/A/3955 & 3956: The arbitral tribunal in this case rejected a former club’s claim
for compensation following the player’s early termination of a contract without just
cause. The club bore a significant degree of responsibility for the termination due to
persistent breaches of the contract, similar to Boavista’s failure to pay salaries on time.
•
CAS 2020/A/7262: This case emphasises that the burden of proof is on the injured party
to substantiate and prove the actual damage suffered. It states that simply stating the
value of existing and/or new contracts and citing applicable FIFA regulations is not
sufficient to claim compensation. It is the responsibility of the claimant club to objectively
prove that it has suffered damages.
62. QPR then turned to the issue of sporting sanctions, arguing that if there was no just cause for
the Player’s termination, no sporting sanctions should be imposed on QPR. QPR argues that the
termination took place outside the protected period, i.e., the period of three full seasons or
three years following the commencement of a contract under the RSTP. In particular, QPR
contends that, as the Player terminated the Contract after the period of three full seasons had
elapsed, no sporting sanctions should be imposed.
63. Finally, QPR submits that it did not induce the Player to terminate the Contract as it only became
aware of the Player’s termination after he had already done so. QPR argues that there is no
evidence to suggest that it had any prior contact or inducement with the Player prior to the
termination of the Contract. By emphasising the lack of prior contact or inducement, QPR seeks
to rebut the presumption set out in art. 17 par. 4 of the RSTP.
64. QPR requests the following relief:
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13973
“In the event the DRC finds that the Player did not terminate the [Contract] with just cause, QPR
respectfully requests that the DRC makes the following orders:
1. The Player’s termination of the [Contract] occurred outside the Protected Period, and therefore
no sporting sanctions are imposed on QPR.
2. Alternatively, there is no evidence to suggest QPR induced the Player to terminate the
[Contract], and therefore no sporting sanctions are imposed on QPR.
3. In the event compensation is due to Boavista at all (which is denied), the Compensation claimed
by Boavista has been vastly overinflated in its claim for damages, is insufficiently pleaded, and
not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
Therefore, the amount of compensation should be reduced to an amount deemed appropriate by
the DRC, taking into account Boavista’s actual loss.
Costs:
Boavista must pay in full, or, in the alternative, a contribution towards, the costs and expenses,
including QPR’s legal costs and expenses, pertaining to these proceedings in accordance with
Article 18.1 of the Procedural Regulations.
This is because Boavista has generated unnecessary costs and acted unreasonably and in bad
faith by bringing a claim which it knows is wholly without merit.”
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
65. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 8 March 2024 and submitted for decision on 27 June 2024.
Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules,
the said edition is applicable to the matter at hand.
66. 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 RSTP (June 2024 edition),
the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns
an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Portuguese club,
an American Player and an English club.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-13973
67. At this point, the Chamber referred to art. 23 par. 3 of the edition June 2024 of the RSTP, which
stipulates that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two
years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. The application of this time limit
shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
68. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the Player’s counterclaim was lodged in front of FIFA
on 19 March 2024. Therefore, in line with art. 23 par. 3 of the Regulations, any amounts fallen
due before 19 March 2022 are affected by the statute of limitations.
69. To this extend, the DRC recalled that the Player in his reply has justified that he had had just
cause to terminate the Contract given that the total amount of EUR 155,015.10 regarding taxes
remained unpaid by Boavista, providing the corresponding explanation:
“Consequently, [Boavista] should have paid at least € 83.906,78 to the Player pursuant to his
salaries from January 2021 to December 2021.
That amount should have been paid in installments monthly by [Boavista] throughout the year
of 2021 beginning on January, that never happened.
Pursuant to the year of 2022 the Portuguese IRS notified the Player demanding the payment of €
68.325,13 plus € 296,54 in costs. (…).
Additionally, in reference to the year of 2022 the Portuguese IRS also demands the amount of €
2.175,50 plus € 21,80 in interests plus € 42,00 in costs. (…).
Finally, also in reference to the 2022 the Portuguese IRS also demands the payment of € 247,35.
(…).”
70. Therefore, the Chamber confirmed that it could not examine any issues in contention regarding
amounts that fell due before 19 March 2022. For the sake of good order, the Chamber outlined
that the issue of the Player’s entitlement to any reimbursement of taxes should be dealt with,
where possible, under the substance section – while noting that the Player did not provide a
breakdown of which months his tax liabilities amounted to.
71. Lastly, 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 RSTP
(June 2024 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 March 2024, the
February 2024 edition of the RSTP (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-13973
b. Burden of proof
72. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
73. 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 abovementioned 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
74. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that this is
a case of breach of contract, in which the Player deems that he had a just cause to terminate
the Contract on the grounds of overdue salaries. Boavista dissents and claims all amounts were
paid.
75. Accordingly, the Chamber confirmed that its task was to confirm whether the Player had just
cause to terminate the Contract, and the ensuing consequences.
76. As a departure point, the Chamber recalled its longstanding jurisprudence according to which
only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract
without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not
reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the
Parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only be an ultima ratio.
77. Considering the above as well as the Player’s contention vis-à-vis art. 14 and 14bis of the
Regulations, the DRC deemed that it must establish which amounts, if any, were outstanding in
order to verify whether the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract. In this respect, the
DRC felt compelled to underline that the Player did not dispute Boavista’s assertion that the
salaries he was collecting in his default notice of 22 May 2023 (delivered to Boavista two days
later) corresponded to the previous two months, i.e., April and May 2023.
78. At the same time, the DRC underlined that, in his reply to Boavista’s claim the Player raised two
arguments in support of his position which however had not surfaced before, either in the
default notice or the termination of the Contract: (i) the supposed late payment by Boavista of
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-13973
EUR 91,400 on 31 May 2023, and not 29 May 2023, made by a company alien to Boavista; and
(ii) the alleged non-payment of the Player’s taxes.
79. The DRC thus proceeded to examine if the justifications raised by the Player had merit.
The payment issue
80. As to the first matter, the DRC underlined that Player claims that the deadline for payment set
under the CBA was not respected. In this regard, the Chamber already found that the
argumentation of the Player could not subsist, for no specimen of the CBA was made available
in the file, which could possibly corroborate the short deadline given by the Player to Boavista
on 24 May 2023 to remedy the default in payment of salaries. The DRC thus established in this
respect that the Player failed to meet his burden of proof regarding his allegations that just
cause should be grounded in the CBA.
81. In continuation, the Chamber noted that Boavista has provided evidence of payment on 29 May
2023, and an additional document of 31 May 2023, both of which account for the payment of
EUR 91,400 plus EUR 125,38 in fees, the latter being due as the amount had been wired to the
Player’s bank account in the USA.
82. In the DRC’s opinion this was easily explainable and did not support the Player’s argument that
the payment was made late: the short time difference of two days corresponds to time
necessary for the banking institutions to process the international transfer of the salaries. The
Chamber found it noteworthy, by the same token, that the Player never objected to this until
he decided to terminate the Contract in June 2023.
83. In any event, the DRC stressed that the Contract was still in force when the amount was
delivered to the Player’s account, without any objection from the Player. The Chamber
accordingly ruled on the basis of the foregoing and the evidence on file that any breach was
remedied by Boavista irrespective of, or even within, the short, unjustified deadline given by
the Player (in that the Player’s allegation regarding the deadline set by the CBA remained
unsubstantiated).
84. For the sake of completeness, the DRC wished to outline that the argument concerning the
amount being paid by another institution other than Boavista was also without merit: the Player
never objected to the payee, which is seemingly a legal person with close connection (if not
within) Boavista’s corporate structure. The DRC also outlined that the Player has equally never
returned the monies – in fact, the evidence on file suggests he kept it since no salaries were
requested as outstanding in these proceedings for the months of April and May 2023. By the
same token, the Chamber highlighted that the Player has also failed to submit any evidence as
to how this alleged third-party payer was not connected to Boavista or in what way this
constellation rendered the payment invalid.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-13973
85. Accordingly, the DRC concluded that Boavista remedied its breach regarding the two unpaid
salaries before the termination of the Contract.
The tax issue
86. Moving on to the tax issue, the DRC remarked that the Player’s argumentation seems dubious:
although he confirmed in his reply to Boavista’s claim that he was collecting the amounts for
April and May 2023, he also justified the termination of the Contract on the grounds of unpaid
taxes, which, however, were never mentioned in any correspondence exchanged with Boavista
(nor in his statement of claim). To this effect, the Player textually stated:
“Therefore, [Boavista] after the default notice served on 22 May 2023 should have transfer the
amount of € 158.955,04 (one hundred and fifty-eight thousand nine hundred and fifty-five euros
and four cents) to the Player, which never happened.
Moreover, [Boavista] after the default notice served on 6 March 2023 should have transfer the
amount of € 238.432,56 (two hundred and thirty eight thousand four hundred and thirty two
euros and fifty six) to the Player, which did not occur.”
87. The Chamber found that the Player’s argument cannot be followed. By attempting to recollect
from the file the figures presented by the Player as well as the issue of the tax
liabilities/reimbursement, the Chamber confirmed the evidence presented is far from
sufficient. In this respect, while the Player has filed documentation issued by the Portuguese
tax authorities, he did not demonstrate that any amounts were paid to said authorities (which
could potentially justify the reimbursement request) and that the tax liability allegedly imposed
on him derives solely from Boavista’s fault on not paying his remuneration net. In fact, the
Chamber once again reiterated that this issue had never surfaced before and was raised only
late in the proceedings when the Player filed his statement of defence.
88. In addition, the Chamber underlined that the Player did not file any evidence of his tax returns
or any similar documents to prove that it was Boavista’s fault that he was now under scrutiny
by the Portuguese tax authorities. For the sake of completeness, the DRC equally underscored
that no evidence has been put forward regarding the gross/net difference outlined by the
Player in his submissions.
89. Put simply, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player has failed to demonstrate that the
notifications addressed to him by the Portuguese tax authorities are connected (solely) to
Boavista’s lack of payment of his (net) salaries.
90. Accordingly, the DRC found that, even if this tax-related issue was admissible – which was
impossible to establish in that the Chamber could not verify to which year the tax request
relates – a claim for tax reimbursement should be properly substantiated and not (seemingly)
submitted as a defence. In this sense, the Chamber ruled that it could not verify whether the
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-13973
Player’s tax problem was related, for instance, to other assets or income that the Player might
have had in parallel with his football activity.
91. Likewise, the DRC also deemed important to underline that Boavista’s argument regarding the
Player’s behaviour has merit, in that (a) he never raised the tax issue until now; and (b) he sat
still for several weeks after the payment of EUR 91,400, namely until he terminated the
Contract. The DRC considered that this change in behaviour could not be accepted under the
principle of estoppel simply because the Player created a legitimate expectation on the part of
Boavista that all was well. In other words, the Chamber was not prepared to accept this element
of the taxes akin to a surprise argument put forward by the Player to justify the termination of
the Contract.
92. It follows that, even if admissible (something that the Chamber could not confirm), the Player’s
position was fully rejected.
Interim conclusion
93. Having established that Boavista remedied its breach in a timely manner by paying EUR 91,400
to the Player shortly after being placed in default, and that the Player’s claims regarding tax
refunds/liabilities were without merit (even if admissible), the DRC concluded that there were
no outstanding amounts that could justify the termination of the Contract, as the only
remaining sum of EUR 45,000 was due on 5 June 2023. This amount was not requested by the
Player in any default notice, nor was it raised as a justification for terminating the Contract. The
Chamber equally highlighted that the last instalment of EUR 45,000 was not pending at the time
the Player decided to terminate the Contract as it was not due until 5 July 2023.
94. The DRC therefore concluded that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the Contract
and shall endure the consequences that follow. By operation of art. 17 of the Regulations, the
DRC equally confirmed that QPR is jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation
as detailed in continuation.
ii. Consequences
95. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences
of the breach of contract committed by the Player.
96. The Chamber observed that, even though the Player did not have just cause to terminate the
Contract, the same was valid until 22 June 2023, a fact that is furthermore not disputed by the
Parties.
97. It follows that the Player should be remunerated for the services rendered up to the
termination of the Contract and which remained unpaid. Therefore, the DRC ruled that the
Player is entitled to receive his unpaid remuneration until the termination, which originally fell
due on 5 June 2023 in the amount of EUR 45,000 net, plus the pro rata monies until 22 June
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-13973
2023 in the amount of EUR 33,000 net. The DRC noted that the Player seemingly allocated these
monies in his counterclaim as part of the compensation sought for the season 2022/23.
98. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that Boavista is liable to pay to the Player the total amount of EUR 88,000
as outstanding remuneration, which, according to the Contract, is due net of taxes.
99. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award him interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the
outstanding amounts as from their respective due dates until the date of effective payment.
The Chamber underlined in this sense that there was no contractual stipulation justifying the
rate of 7% p.a. requested by the Player.
100. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable by the Player to Boavista in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, the fees
and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the Contract)
and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
101. In applying the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first had to clarify whether the
Contract contained a provision by means of which the Parties had agreed beforehand upon an
amount of compensation payable in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the
Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the Contract.
102. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Player to Boavista had to be assessed by applying other parameters of art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
103. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as Boavista’s claim, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the Player under Contract until its term. Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,064,000 serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. Said amount was
calculated considering the residual value of the Contract for two seasons plus the yearly
allowances (two times), i.e., EUR 500,000 + EUR 550,000 + EUR 10,000 + EUR 4,000.
104. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Player had signed an employment contract
with another club during the relevant period. According to the constant practice of the Chamber
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-13973
as well as art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new employment
contract shall be considered in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract due by a player to his former club. In particular, the Chamber explained that the
standard practice is to calculate the average between the Player’s remuneration with his former
club and his remuneration with his new club for exactly the same period comprised between
the early termination of the employment contract with the old club and the original expiry date
of such contract.
105. In this respect, the Player indeed found new employment with QPR. In accordance with the New
Employment Agreement, the Player was entitled to the following amounts for the period
corresponding to the original term of the Contract: GBP 550,000 plus GBP 725,000, which
amounts to GBP 1,275,000 or approximately EUR 1,510,000.
106. Thus, the Chamber concluded that, the average of the Player’s remuneration with Boavista and
his current remuneration with QPR between the date of early termination of the Contract and
its original expiry date amounts to EUR 1,287,000 (i.e., EUR 1,064,000 + EUR 1,510,000)/2). The
Chamber therefore decided to award this amount to Boavista as compensation for the Player’s
breach of contract. For the sake of completeness, and considering also the absence of
submissions to this effect, the Chamber confirmed it was not prepared to consider other
concepts under the New Employment Agreement as part of the Player’s remuneration,
especially since most of them were conditional.
107. Lastly, taking into consideration Boavista’s request and the constant practice of the Chamber
in this regard, the latter decided to award it interest on said compensation at the rate of 5%
p.a. from 22 June 2023 until the date of effective payment.
108. Furthermore, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations,
QPR shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount of
compensation to Boavista.
iii. Sporting sanctions
109. Having decided the above, the DRC then turned to the issue of sporting sanctions. In doing so,
the Chamber recalled that the Player terminated the Contract on 22 June 2023. Accordingly, the
DRC stressed that, in order to determine whether this termination was within or outside the
protected period as defined by the Regulations, it needed to consider the date on which the
Contract was signed and the age of the Player at that time.
110. Accordingly, the Chamber confirmed that the Contract was signed on 8 September 2020 when
the Player was 22 years old.
111. According to the definition of the protected period under the Regulations, it lasts for three full
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of the relevant
contract, as long as this contract is concluded prior to the player’s 28th birthday.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-13973
112. Considering that the Player signed the Contract at the age of 22, the protected period would
last until he turns 25 years old or until three full seasons have elapsed since the Contract came
into force, whichever occurs first. The termination of the Contract occurred on 22 June 2023,
i.e., after the Player had turned 25 years old. Therefore, the termination took place outside the
protected period.
113. Consequently, the DRC decided that no sporting sanctions should be imposed in the matter at
hand.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
114. 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.
115. 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.
116. By the same token, it underlined that against players, the consequence of the failure to pay the
relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in official matches up until
the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall be of up to six
months.
117. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that:
a.
Boavista 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
Boavista in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
b.
QPR must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to Boavista within 45
days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of Boavista, 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
QPR in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
c.
the Player must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to Boavista within
45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of Boavista, a restriction
on playing in official matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-13973
immediately effective on the Player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the
Regulations.
118. The respective debtors shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the corresponding creditors in the Bank Account Registration Forms,
which are attached to the present decision.
119. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans 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
120. 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.
121. 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.
122. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the Parties.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-13973
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Boavista FC, is partially accepted.
2.
The First Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Reginald Jacob Cannon, must pay to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent EUR 1,287,000 as compensation for breach of contract
without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 June 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
The Second Respondent, Queens Park Rangers FC, is jointly and severally liable for the payment
of the aforementioned compensation.
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 First Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be imposed with a restriction on playing in
official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
2. The Second 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.
3. 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 or the end of the six months
respectively of the Second Respondent and the First Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players.
7.
The counterclaim of the First Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Reginald Jacob Cannon, is partially
accepted.
8.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Boavista FC, must pay to the First Respondent/CounterClaimant the following amount(s):
-
EUR 45,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 June 2023
until the date of effective payment;
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-13973
-
9.
EUR 33,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 June 2023
until the date of effective payment.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
10. 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 of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in
the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of
the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
11. 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.
12. Any further claims of any of the parties are rejected.
13. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-13973
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. 28