Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13331
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Marko Dabro
COMPOSITION:
Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil/Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Stella Maris Juncos (Argentina), member
Jorge Gutiérrez (Costa Rica), member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Marko Dabro, Croatia
Represented by Hrvoje Raic
RESPONDENT/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Beijing Guoan FC, China PR
Represented by Great Wall Law Firm
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
NK Varadzin, Croatia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13331
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 April 2022, the Croatian player Marko Dabro (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter
Respondent 1 or the Player) and the Chinese club Beijing Guoan FC (hereinafter: the
Respondent/Counterclaimant or Guoan or the Club) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from the same date until 31 December 2025.
2.
In accordance with the employment contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player inter
alia a monthly net salary of EUR 70,000 and “monthly accommodation expenses” in the
amount of CNY 13,000.
3.
On 3 February 2023, the Respondent/Counterclaimant and the Latvian club Riga FC agreed
on the temporary transfer of the Player from Respondent/Counterclaimant to Riga FC for
the period between 5 February 2023 and 31 December 2023 (hereinafter: the Loan
Agreement).
4.
Art. 2 of the Loan Agreements reads: “[the Club] and the Player shall suspend the current
contract of employment (…) the suspension will be arranged on the loan period. Accordingly, the
Player is obliged to arrive in the depositions of [the Club] on the 1st of January 2024”.
5.
On 10 February 2023, the Player and Riga FC signed an employment contract valid from
the same date until 30 November 2023, and for a monthly net salary of EUR 20,000
(hereinafter: the Riga Contract).
6.
Furthermore, on 11 February 2023, the Player and the Club signed a “Supplementary
Agreement”, by means of which the Club undertook to pay the Player a total of EUR 565,000
as net remuneration on top of the salary the Player received under the Riga Contract during
the season 2023.
7.
By correspondence dated 13 September 2023, the Player put the Club in default of
payment concerning the amount of EUR 376,430 net, which corresponded to outstanding
remuneration for the period comprised between January 2023 and July 2023, and granted
the Club 10 days to remedy the alleged breach.
8.
On 19 September 2023, the Club replied via email to the Player, informing the latter that it
was working on a Supplementary Agreement with the assistance of an intermediary named
Mr. Li.
9.
In reply to the above, on the same day the Player sent a second email to the Club, arguing
that Mr. Li was not authorized to discuss any agreement on behalf of the Player nor that
the latter had any intention to terminate the Contract prematurely. Accordingly, the Player
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13331
referred the Club once again to his previous default notice dated 13 September 2023 and
asked it to comply within the terms therein indicated.
10. On 11 October 2023, the Club executed a payment in favour of the Player in the amount of
EUR 45,000.
11. On 14 December 2023, the Player sent a further default notice to the Club, asking for
payment of EUR 481,430 net as outstanding remuneration for the period between January
2023 and October 2023, contextually granting a final deadline of 15 days to remedy the
default.
12. On 20 December 2023, the Club made another payment to the Player in the amount of EUR
158,000.
13. On 2 January 2024, the Player notified the Club that he was unilaterally terminating the
Contract due to overdue payables.
14. On 3 January 2024, the Club sent an email to the Player arguing having paid the latter’s
salaries until October 2023, and attached a payment receipt in the amount of EUR 272,000.
15. On 5 February 2024, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Croatian club
NK Varadzin (hereinafter: the Counter-Respondent 2 or Varadzin) valid from said date until
31 May 2026 (hereinafter: the Varadzin Contract).
16. Pursuant to the Varadzin Contract, the Player would be entitled to a monthly net salary of
EUR 5,500.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 11 January 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
18. According to the Player, the Club failed to comply with its financial obligations both under
the Contract and the Supplementary Agreement despite the several reminders and default
notices, thus leaving the Player no alternative but to terminate the Contract prematurely
on 2 January 2024.
19. In this respect, the Player held having had just cause to terminate the Contract subject to
the relevant overdue payables from the Club, also claimeing that he was entitled to receive
a compensation amounting to the residual value of the Contract.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13331
20. The requests for relief of the Player, accordingly, were the following:
i.
“to ascertain that the Claimant terminated the Employment contract signed with the
Respondent with just cause; and
ii. a) to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant outstanding remuneration of
net EUR 175,946.00 (one hundred and seventy-five thousand, nine hundred and forty-six
euros) plus RMB 13,838.00, which matured as follows:
- EUR 1,430.00, on 20/10/2023, and
- EUR 50,000.00, on 20/11/2023, and
- EUR 50,000.00, on 20/12/2023, and
- EUR 70,000.00, on 02/01/2024, and
- EUR 4,516.00, on 02/01/2024, and
- RMB 13,838.00, on 02/01/2024; and
b) to condemn the Respondent to pay all relevant taxes, state contributions and surcharges,
on top of the above-mentioned net amounts, within 45 days as from the date of notification
of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent; and
c) to condemn the Respondent to provide the Claimant with the corresponding tax
certificates concerning the payment of all the above specified net amounts alongside all the
net amounts already paid to the Claimant during the term of the Employment Contract,
within 45 days as from the date of notification of the decision in the matter of the reference
to the Respondent; and
iii. a) to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant compensation of net EUR
1,675,484.00 (one million, six hundred and seventy-five thousand, four hundred and eightyfour euros) and RMB 312,000.00 which matured on 2/1/2024, while at the same time taking
into account provisions of Article 17. of FIFA RSTP, within 45 days as from the date of
notification of the decision in the present matter to the Respondent; and
b) to condemn the Respondent to pay all relevant taxes, state contributions and surcharges,
on top of the above-mentioned net compensation, within 45 days as from the date of
notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent; and
c) to condemn the Respondent to provide the Claimant with the corresponding tax
certificates concerning the payment of all the above specified net compensation, within 45
days as from the date of notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the
Respondent; and
or alternatively to the points III.a), III. b) and III. c) herein,
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13331
d) to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant compensation in total of EUR
3,054,544.00 (three million, fifty-five thousand, five hundred and forty-four euros) and RMB
312,000.00 which matured on 2/1/2024, while at the same time taking into account
provisions of Article 17. of FIFA RSTP, within 45 days as from the date of notification of the
decision in the present matter to the Respondent; and
iv. into in any event, to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant default interest
of 5% per year on the aforementioned amounts starting from the respective date of maturity
specified in points II. and III. above until the effective date of the payment, within 45 days as
from the date of notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent;
and
v. to impose sporting sanctions against the Respondent, all in the light of FIFA RSTP”.
b. Position of the Club and counterclaim
21. In its reply, the Club rebutted the Player’s allegations concerning the Club’s noncompliance
with the terms of the Contract and the Supplementary Agreement, arguing that it was in
fact the Player who breached the Contract.
22. In particular, the Club argued that unlike the Contract, the Supplementary Agreement does
not specify the due date for the relevant Player’ salaries, thus allowing the Club to rely on
flexible terms. In this respect, the Club acknowledged having executed several payments
in favour of the Player, for a total of EUR 475,000, before the Player’s premature
termination.
23. In this respect, the Club alleged having executed the last relevant payment in the amount
of EUR 272,000 on 30 December 2024, and that the transfer to the Player was completed
on 2 January 2024. Hence, in the Club’s view, the Player’s decision to terminate the Contract
on the same day was totally unexpected and without just cause.
24. In this context, the Club held that the due date indicated under the Contract would not be
applicable as it pertained to a different agreement between the parties, which was
suspended during the entire period of the Loan Agreement. Conversely, the Club stated
that: “Following the Club's practices, full payment of the loan subsidy will be made after the loan
period expires”.
25. Accordingly, the Club held having executed all its payments in a timely manner in line with
the terms of the Supplementary Agreement and the Club’s policies.
26. In continuation, the Club stated that although the Player was supposed to re-join his parent
club in China - after the loan - by 1 December 2023, he never came back, nor did he provide
the Club with any information about his expected return.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13331
27. On account of the above, the Club pleaded to reject the Player’s claim and in turn lodged a
counterclaim against the latter and his new club, Varadzin, demanding to be paid
compensation by either parties due to the premature termination of the Contract without
just cause by the Player.
28. The requests for relief of the Respondent, accordingly, were the following:
-
“To oblige the Player to pay to the [Club] the compensation for the early unilateral
termination of the contract without just cause in the amount of EUR 1,082,000 net as residual
value of the employment contract, plus interest at a rate of 5% per annum;
-
To oblige the player’s new club to be jointly and severally liable with the Player for making
compensation payments to the [Club];
-
In any case, should the Club be ordered to assume any financial obligation towards the
Player, it should be confirmed whether the Player has already signed contracts with other
clubs, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be considered in the
calculation of the amount of compensation”.
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
29. In response to the Club’s counterclaim, the Player first objected to the due date of his
return to China under the Loan Agreement, arguing that he was supposed to re-join his
parent club only as from 1 January 2024 and not December 2023 as erroneously stated by
the Club.
30. Secondly, the Player alleged having received the last payment by the Club on 3 January
2024 only, meaning after terminating the Contract and not before, as the Club sustained.
In this respect, the Player also argued that the Club failed to produce any evidence of
having executed said payment on 30 December 2023.
31. In addition to the above, the Player emphasized that in any case, at the time of the
termination, the Club held a debt towards the Player amounting to EUR 171,430 plus
accommodation expenses in the amount of CNY 13,000.00. Hence, the outstanding
amount in favour of the Player at the time corresponded to more than two monthly salaries
under either the Contract or the Supplementary Agreement, thus entitling the Player to
terminate the Contract with just cause under the relevant FIFA regulations.
32. The Player therefore upheld his original requests for relief and pleaded to reject the Club’s
counterclaim in its entirety.
d. Position of Varadzin
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13331
33. In its defensive statement, Varadzin argued having had no role in the Player’s decision to
terminate the Contract on 2 January 2024.
34. In particular, Varadzin declared that the first contact with the Player’s agent occurred on
30 January 2024 only.As such, it rejected the Club’s allegations according to which Varadzin
would have induced the Player to prematurely terminate the Contract.
35. Varadzin’s request for relief was therefore to be released from any form of liability in the
premature termination of the Contract, regardless of any findings concerning the Player’s
just cause.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
36. 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 11 January 2024 and submitted
for decision on 4 April 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023
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.
37. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 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 Croatian player
and a Chinese club.
38. 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 11 January 2024, the May 2023 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
39. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13331
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
40. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
41. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties dispute the existence of outstanding
remuneration in favour of the Player under the Supplementary Agreement and the
Contract. In particular, the Chamber observed that, in the Club’s view, the latter would have
been entitled to pay the Player’s salary at any time after the relevant loan period expired
and the Player would have no just cause to prematurely terminate the Contract on 2
January 2024.
42. In this respect, the Chamber also took note of the Club’s allegations according to which said
flexibility in terms of payment would derive from the absence of any indication about the
due date for the Player’s remuneration in the Supplementary Agreement. The Chamber
observed that, on the contrary, the Player held having had just cause to terminate the
Contract based on the consistent number of salaries which were outstanding at the time,
in line with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
43. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was therefore to
determine which amounts were effectively outstanding in favour of the Player at the time
of the termination, if any, and in the affirmative, whether the Player would have just cause
to terminate the relevant employment contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
44. In this context, the Chamber first focused its attention on the Club’s argument according
to which the due date for the Player’s remuneration under the Supplementary Agreement
would not correspond to what agreed by the parties in the Contract.
45. In this regard, the Chamber noted that although the Club alleged it was entitled to pay the
Player’s remuneration related to the year 2023 after the relevant loan period had expired,
the consistency and frequency of the payments it executed in favour of the Player during
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13331
said time, respectively on 3 October, 20 December and 30 December 2023 (or 2 January
2024) would clearly suggest a different interpretation of the Supplementary Agreement. In
this context, the Chamber also wished to highlight that the Club has never objected to the
Player’s default notices nor it has ever disputed the due date of any payment made in
favour of the Player.
46. In addition to the above, the Chamber deemed the connection between the Contract and
the Supplementary Agreement to be evident, with the latter apparently serving the sole
function of recalibrating the Player’s remuneration based on the temporary agreement
stipulated with Riga FC. In Chamber’s view, this was the reason why the parties did not even
worry to clarify the criteria adopted for the calculation of the fixed amount of EUR 565,000
in relation to the loan period.
47. Likewise, in the Chamber’s view, it appears only rational that, in the absence of any contrary
indication, the parties would implicitly undertake the same terms agreed in the Contract,
including the due date for the Player’ salaries. Had the Club wanted to arrange a different
payment schedule, in the Chamber’s view, it should have manifested its will accordingly by
inserting a different provision in the Supplementary Agreement. Conversely, the Chamber
emphasized that the Club’s conduct in conjunction with the lack of further indications
under the Supplementary Agreement would have at least generated certain expectations
in the Player that his salaries should have been paid, in principle, in a regular manner.
48. The Chamber also emphasized that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the
parties. Nonetheless, the evidence provided by the Club (namely the receipts of several
payments made in favour of the Player on an irregular basis) does not prove per se that the
parties had agreed on a different payment calendar than the one originally stipulated
under the Contract.
49. Hence, the Chamber concluded that it cannot entertain the Club’s thesis according to which
the latter would have been entitled to pay the Player’s remuneration related to the year
2023 after the end of the relevant loan period.
50. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber remarked that it had yet to establish the degree
of delay by the Club in the payment of the Player’s relevant remuneration, if any, and
whether said delay would entitle the latter to prematurely terminate the employment
contract on 2 January 2024.
51. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the
Regulations, in accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two
monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to
terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and
has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its
financial obligation(s).
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13331
52. As a starting point, the Chamber noted that the Player has indeed provided written
evidence of having put the Club in default on 14 December 2023, i.e., at least 15 days before
unilaterally terminating the contract on 2 January 2024.
53. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his
remuneration corresponding to part of the salary due for September 2023 as well as the
salaries of October and November 2023, in full. Furthermore, the Player stated that at the
time of the termination, the Club held further debts towards the Player in the amount of
EUR 272,000, which were paid by the Club (allegedly) after the Player had notified the
premature termination of the Contract.
54. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that during said period, the Player was
registered on loan at Riga FC and that, based on the relevant loan agreement, the
employment contract between the Club and the Player would be suspended from 5
February 2023 until 31 December 2023.
55. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that during the loan period, the Player’ salary with
Riga FC would amount to EUR 20,000 while the Club would maintain an obligation to pay
the Player a total of EUR 565,000 as “difference”. The members of the DRC agreed on
interpreting this expression as the “contractual balance” between the Riga Contract and
the relevant employment agreement between the Player and the Club.
56. The Chamber found confirmation of the above by calculating the pro-rata value of the
Player’s mentioned remuneration during the loan period and verifying that the amount of
EUR 565,000 would indeed correspond to approximately EUR 49,500 per month until 30
November 2023 (i.e., 10 months) plus EUR 70,000 as salary for the month of December
2023. In facts, the Chamber assessed that, based on the Riga Contract, the relevant
employment relationship with Riga FC would end on 30 November 2023, whereas the Loan
Agreement establishes that the Player would have to return to his parent club (i.e., the
Respondent/Counterclaimant) only on 1 January 2024.
57. The Chamber therefore concluded that, as from the month of December 2023, the Club
had already reacquired full financial responsibility for the Player's salary as established
under the Contract, thus having to pay the Player the sum of EUR 70,000 per month.
58. In this context, the Chamber observed that the Player held that a total of EUR 373,430 had
remained outstanding at the time of the termination, or, upon accounting for the Club’s
payment dated 3 January 2024, an amount of EUR 171,430 (i.e. EUR 373,430 – 272,000).
Based on the aforementioned pro-rata calculation, the aforementioned outstanding
amount would in any case correspond to more than 2 monthly salaries under the Contract
and more than 3 salaries under the Supplementary Agreement. Nonetheless, the Chamber
wished to point out that the contractual due date of the salary of December 2023 would
be on 20 January 2024 only. As such,it shall not be computed as outstanding at the time of
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13331
the termination and the relevant pro-rata shall be based exclusively on the value of the
Player’s remuneration under the Supplementary Agreement.
59. Accordingly, the Chamber established that, even assuming that the relevant payment of
EUR 272,000 had been executed by the Club before the termination, a total of EUR 101,430
would still result outstanding at that time and said sum would correspond to at least two
monthly salaries under the Supplementary Agreement.
60. The Chamber therefore emphasized that any further speculation regarding the actual due
date of the aforementioned payment by the Club would be moot, and as such will refrain
from making any determination in this respect.
61. In consideration of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Player indeed had just
cause to unilaterally terminate the contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
62. As a consequence, the DRC also decided to reject the counterclaim of the Club as it lacks
legal ground.
ii. Consequences
63. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Club.
64. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the Player’s specific requests for relief, amount to EUR 101,430. In this
context, for the sake of procedural order, the Chamber decided to include the Player’s
salary for December 2023 in the amount of EUR 70,000.
65. Conversely, the Chamber decided that the sum of EUR 4,516 claimed by the Player in
relation to the salary of January 2024 shall instead be computed as part of the relevant
compensation.
66. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the Player shall be entitled to a total of CNY
13,000 as accommodation expenses for the month of December 2023 based on the
relevant employment contract.
67. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding
amounts of EUR 171,430 net and CNY 13,000.
68. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13331
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
69. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in
particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
70. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first had to clarify whether
the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties
had agreed beforehand upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual
parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the
matter at stake.
71. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
72. Bearing in mind the foregoing, as well as the Player’s claim, the Chamber proceeded with
the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 1,680,000 (i.e., the residual value) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
73. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the Player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
74. Indeed, the Player found employment with Riga FC. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately EUR 5,500 per month.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13331
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 126,500, that is, 23 times EUR 5,500.
75. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the Club, and therefore
decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
76. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
EUR 210,000 i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player under the
employment contract.
77. However, the Chamber reminded the parties that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1
ii) of the Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the
prematurely terminated contract. As such, the additional compensation to be granted was
limited to EUR 126,500.
78. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount
of EUR 1,680,000 to the Player (i.e., EUR 1,680,000 minus EUR 126,500 plus EUR 126,500),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the present matter.
79. Furthermore, the Chamber decided to award the Player CNY 312,000 as monthly
accommodation expenses based on the relevant employment contract (i.e., CNY 13,000 x
24 months, from 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2025)
80. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 2 January 2024 until the date of effective payment.
81. Finally, the Chamber remarked that the Player’s request regarding the production of the
relevant tax certificates by the Club lacked contractual basis, and thus it must be rejected.
Nonetheless, the Chamber highlighted that the sums whose value is expressed in EUR that
are due by the Club to the Player as established in the present decision shall be paid net of
any tax, in accordance with the Contract.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
82. 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13331
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.
83. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of failing 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.
84. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the
Respondent/Counterclaimant must pay the full amount due (including all applicable
interest) to the Claimant/Counter Respondent 1 within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the latter, 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/Counterclaimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
85. The Respondent/Counterclaimant shall make full payment (including all applicable interest)
to the bank account provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 in the Bank Account
Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
86. 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
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13331
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, Marko Dabro, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant, Beijing Guoan FC, must pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1the following amount(s):
EUR 171,430 net as outstanding remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,430 as from 21 October 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 as from 21 November 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 50,000 as from 21 December 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 70,000 as from 2 January 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
CNY 13,000 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a.as from 2 January 2024 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 1,680,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus
5% interest p.a. as from 2 January 2024 until the date of effective payment;
CNY 312,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause
(accommodation expenses) plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 January 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant is rejected.
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/Counterclaimant 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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-13331
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 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
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-13331
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. 18