Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-708
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 03 June 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Makhete Diop
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairman
Mohamed Muzammil (Singapore), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
Makhete Diop, Senegal
Represented by Mr. Salvatore Civale
RESPONDENT:
Al Shabab, Saudi Arabia
Represented by ADP LAW (PTY) Ltd.
Page 2
REF FPSD-708
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 2 January 2020, the Senegalese player, Mr. Makhete Diop (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant), and the Saudi club, Al Shabab (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), signed
an employment contract valid as from 3 January 2020 until 2 July 2021 (hereinafter: the
employment contract).
2.
In accordance with item 4 of the employment contract, the club undertook to pay the
player, inter alia, the following remuneration:
a. EUR 2,000,000 as signing fee, payable as follows: (i) EUR 500,000, on 10 July 2020;
(ii) EUR 1,000,000, on 1 February 2021; and (iii) EUR 500,000 on 1 May 2021;
b. EUR 222,223 as monthly salary; and
c. Housing allowance.
3.
On 9 December 2020, the same parties concluded a supplementary agreement in order to
“reschedule the due amounts as mentioned in the article (4)” (hereinafter: the
supplementary agreement).
4.
In accordance with clause 1.1 of the supplementary agreement, the player expressly agreed
to delay the first instalment of the signing fee to 5 January 2021.
5.
Furthermore, clause 1.2 of the supplementary agreement established the following: “the
club should pay to the player the amount of his accommodation of SR (151,000.00) one
hundred fifty one thousand Saudi Riyals no later than 05.01.2021 which was paid by the
player to compound”.
6.
On 6 March 2020, the acting president of the Saudi Pro League issued a letter regarding
“the impact of Corona pandemic (COVID-19) to the financial position of the league and the
annual provisions for members clubs”. Accordingly, the clubs were requested to take the
necessary precautions on light of the suspension of the competitions, in order to
“rationalism the expenses to avoid any financial obstacles or legal disputes”.
7.
On 14 April 2020, the club issued a circular letter, whereby it informed its players, inter alia,
about the following: “As suggested by FIFA, we intend to work with our playing squad in
order to consider any necessary amendments to contractual terms, including those
concerning remuneration. In line with this, we will be contacting all of our players in order
to undertake discussions. We hope that we can work together on this issue in
contemplation of the significant pressures on our club, as well as our society in this time”.
Page 3
REF FPSD-708
8.
On 17 April 2020, the club informed the player about a unilateral reduction of his monthly
salaries. In particular, the club wrote the following: “Therefore, it is decided to: Reducing
the monthly wage during the period of Corona epidemic, which is equivalent to all
professional players in the club along with the technical staff. Where, the amount of
(20,000 twenty thousand Saudi riyals) from the monthly wage will be maintained fixed
without any reduction, while the remaining amount of the monthly wage shall be deducted
by 50% this reduction is effective from 15/3/2020 until resuming the sport activity and
training and the end of Corona epidemic outbreak. [...] This notice is binding and effective
from [...] its sending date. Al-Shabab Club thanks you for your patience, cooperation and
understanding such difficulties situation”.
9.
On 18 January 2021, the club notified the player the premature termination of the
employment contract, as follows:
“We refer to the above subject. The club after deliberation and numerous discussions
between the management and technical team. We hereby wish to inform you that it has
been agreed that you have become surplus to the playing squad and therefore hereby wish
to notify you of the termination of your employment contract with the club, with immediate
effect.
The club hereby wishes to acknowledge its debt to you in relation to outstanding salaries
and signing fees and undertakes to make the necessary payments in due course. The club
further undertakes to fulfill the financial conditions of the employment contract which are
due to you until the expiration date on 2 July 2021, should you not find club in the said
period. However, should you find a club during the said period, the club undertakes to pay
the difference in salary so that you will not be making any financial losses during the
contract period.
The conditions of the termination will be clarified in the form of a Termination Agreement,
as well a copy of your clearance certificate which will be sent to you in due course allowing
you to join a club of your choice”.
10.
On the same date, i.e. 18 January 2021, the club sent the player’s representative via e-mail
a proposal for settling the outstanding payments under the employment contract. In this
respect, the club acknowledged owing him the total amount of EUR 3,792,599, to be paid
as follows:
“1. €300 000,00 payable by 7 February 2021
2. €400 000,00 payable by 7 March 2021
3. €400 000,00 by 7 April 2021
4. €450 000,00 by 7 May 2021
5. €450 000,00 by 7 June 2021
6. €550 000,00 by 7 July 2021
7. €600 000,00 by 7 August 2021
8. €642 599,00 by 7 September 2021”
Page 4
REF FPSD-708
11.
On 19 January 2021, the player’s representative replied to the club’s e-mail and offered the
following counter-proposal:
“1) EUR 980,000 - To be paid now - within 2 days form the signature
(namely the first sign on fee of 500k which was due last July + 2 salaries of November and
December + accommodation costs)
2) EUR 1,222,223 - To be paid on 1 February 2021
(namely the second sign on fee of 1m + salary of January 2021)
3) EUR 1,166,669 - To be paid on 1 May 2021
(namely the third sign on fee of 500k + 3 salaries of February, March and April 2021)
4) EUR 444,446 - To be paid on 30 June 2021
(namely the 2 salaries of May and June 2021)
5) EUR 350,000 - To be paid on 30 July 2021
(namely the amount the Club deducted from the previous salaries without approval of the
Player”.
12.
In parallel, also on 19 January 2021, the player sent the club a default notice by means of
which he requested payment, within 10 days, of the total amount of EUR 4,163,338,
broken down as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
EUR 500,000 corresponding to the first instalment of the signing fee;
EUR 222,223 corresponding to the salary of November 2020;
EUR 222,223 corresponding to the salary of December 2020;
SAR 151,000 corresponding to accommodation costs;
EUR 350,000 corresponding to “partial amounts not paid by the club for the period
March-April-May-June”; and
f. EUR 2,833,333 as compensation for the premature breach of the employment
agreement.
13.
Subsequently, the player also gave notice of the termination of the employment contract
to the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF).
14.
On 22 January 2021, the player sent SAFF, FIFA and the club another default notice
reiterating that the amounts allegedly due under the employment contract remained
outstanding.
15.
On 25 January 2021, the club replied to the player’s notices and referred to the COVID
pandemic in order to stress that: “it is not disputing or refusing to pay Mr Diop his dues in
respect of his contract but asking for some time to make the necessary payments. However,
Page 5
REF FPSD-708
the proposal you have forwarded in your email dated 19 January 2021 at this point is
beyond the clubs ability to fulfil and accept”.
16.
The club further mentioned that: “[the player], along with all the players in the squad, were
issued letters during the lockdown and suspension of the league indicating the reduction
in salaries as per the directive of SAFF. The letter and reduction in salary had not been
opposed on receipt by the player, however the player is now claiming this amount. The club
has requested to meet with the player in an attempt to structure a payment plan but
without any success. This being said, the club would like to find an amicable solution that
would be acceptable and within their financial means”. Lastly, the club concluded as
follows: “should Mr Diop be amenable to such discussions the club would be willing to
structure a plan with the player that is beneficial to all parties”.
17.
On 27 January 2021, the player wrote to the club and stated, inter alia, that it had never
contacted him in order to arrange a meeting. Thus, the player wrote the following: “In any
case, the Club has not shown any sign of good faith since it has never paid the Player any
of the sums due, both as overdue and as compensation. In light of the above, therefore,
my client has no choice but to immediately lodge a complaint before FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber”.
18.
On 31 January 2021, the player signed a new employment agreement with Al Dhafra
Football Club (hereinafter: Al Dhafra), valid as from 1 February 2021 until 30 June 2022.
19.
In accordance with the new employment contract, Al Dhafra undertook to pay the player
the following remuneration:
a. Monthly salary of USD 36,000, from 1 February 2021 until 30 June 2021 (total of USD
180,000); and
b. Monthly salary of USD 66,667, from 1 July 2021 until 30 June 2022 (total of USD
800,000).
20.
On 2 February 2021, the club provided its response to the player’s notice of 27 January
2021 and stated, inter alia, that the employment agreement signed with Al Dhafra should
be taken into consideration for the calculation of the compensation owed by the club.
Moreover, the club pointed out that it was acting in good faith and willing to make the first
payment of EUR 300,000 immediately to the player (cf. the structured payment plan
previously sent on 18 January 2021).
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
21.
On 1 February 2021, the player filed the claim at hand against the club requesting, inter
alia, the following amounts plus the relevant interest:
a. Outstanding remuneration in the total of EUR 1,499,561, broken down as follows:
Page 6
REF FPSD-708
i. EUR 77,223 as the partial salary of March 2020;
ii. EUR 120,223 as the partial salary of April 2020;
iii. EUR 192,223 as the partial salary of May 2020;
iv. EUR 115,223 as the partial salary of June 2020;
v. EUR 16,223 as the partial salary of July 2020;
vi. EUR 222,223 as the full salary of November 2020;
vii. EUR 222,223 as the full salary of December 2020;
viii. EUR 500,000 as the first instalment of the signing fee;
ix. SAR 151,000 as accommodation costs.
b. Compensation for breach of the employment agreement in the total of EUR 2,833,333.
22.
In his claim, the player clarified that the club did not honour its financial duties “by paying
with big delay the monthly salary and by never paying the sign on fees instalments”. In this
respect, the player added that he acted in good faith and accepted to postpone some of
the payments. However, the club subsequently terminated the employment contract
without just cause.
23.
Furthermore, the player referred to his default notices and concluded that the club should
be liable to pay him compensation in accordance with art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
24.
As to the calculation of the compensation, the player maintained that the residual value of
the employment contract amounted to EUR 2,833,333, corresponding to the six remaining
monthly salary plus the second and the third instalments of the signing fee.
25.
Finally, the player requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club in accordance
with art. 17, par. 4 of the FIFA RSTP.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
26.
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 30 January 2021 and submitted
for decision on 3 June 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January
2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned
edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
27.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of
Page 7
REF FPSD-708
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), 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 Senegalese player
and a Saudi club.
28.
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 Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 January 2021, the January 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
29.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
30.
In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
31.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC 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
32.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that it remained undisputed between the parties that the
employment contract was prematurely terminated by the club on 18 January 2021 on the
grounds inter alia that the player had become a “surplus” to the team.
33.
As such, the DRC confirmed, in line with its longstanding jurisprudence, that a termination
of such grounds cannot be deemed as justifiable and is to be considered as a termination
without just cause – something that the DRC highlighted that is also not disputed by the
parties.
Page 8
REF FPSD-708
34.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was only to determine the
consequences that arise from such termination.
35.
Having stated the above, the DRC sought to establish which payments had remained
outstanding at the time of the termination. In addition, taking into consideration art. 17
par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive
compensation from the club for the termination of the contract without just cause.
36.
To this extent, the Chamber took due note of the club’s argumentation regarding the
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
37.
Accordingly, the Chamber firstly wished to highlight that FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the
COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate guidance and recommendations
to member associations and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the consequences of
disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response is harmonised in the
common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an additional document,
referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on the most relevant
questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and
identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
38.
The DRC also outlined that said guidelines – as per the explicit wording of FAQ no. 16, as
well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines – are only applicable to “unilateral
variations to existing employment agreements”. Therefore, except where a termination of
a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as a result of COVID-19 (in which
case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the guidelines), said guidelines
do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing employment agreements. The
Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes that are presented before the
FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of a contract, the FIFA Regulations
as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber shall apply.
39.
Additionally, analysing the concept of a situation of force majeure, the members of the
Chamber noted that, based on the contents of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA
COVID-19 FAQ, FIFA did not declare that the COVID-19 outbreak was a force majeure
situation in any specific country or territory, or that any specific employment or transfer
agreement was impacted by the concept of force majeure.
40.
In other words, in any given dispute, it is for a party invoking force majeure to establish the
existence of said event under the applicable law/rules as well as the consequences that
derive in connection thereto. The analysis of whether a situation of force majeure existed
has to be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the relevant
circumstances.
41.
Following these general observations, the members of the Chamber went on to analyse
whether in the matter at hand, any of the parties to the contract had made a unilateral
Page 9
REF FPSD-708
variation to their existing agreement prior to the unilateral termination of the employment
contract by the club.
42.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber agreed that the decision of the club to
unilaterally reduce 50% of the player’s salary payments has to be considered as a unilateral
variation to the employment relationship between the parties. It was clear to the members
that the club, at first, did not terminate the contract, but only altered the salary payment.
As a result, the members of the Chamber concluded that the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines
and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ are applicable to the matter at hand when having to assess
the legitimacy of the pertinent unilateral alteration.
43.
Nevertheless, in application of the FIFA COVID 19 Guidelines, the DRC further stressed that
unilateral decisions to vary agreements will only be recognised where they are made in
accordance with national law or are permissible within collective bargained agreements
(CBA) structures or another collective agreement mechanism.
44.
What is more, the Chamber stressed the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
pursuant to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the
burden of proof. As an example, a party should provide independent legal advice from a
qualified legal practitioner in the relevant jurisdiction which confirms that the unilateral
variation was a valid exercise of the national law referred to in the agreement, CBA, or
other collective agreement mechanism.
45.
Turning to the evidence on file as well as the submissions of the parties, the Chamber
confirmed that there is no such evidence capable of demonstrating that the unilateral
variation of the player’s salary was made on the basis of the national law, or any collective
agreement. In this regard, the Chamber was firm to determine that the pieces of evidence
filed by the club only demonstrate the financial impacts of COVID in its finances, which is
not sufficient to prove a situation entitling the club to unilaterally vary the terms of an
employment contract.
46.
Likewise, the DRC concurred that equally nothing on file is able to demonstrate that the
national law addresses the issue of force majeure.
47.
Based on the foregoing considerations, the Chamber unanimously concluded that the
unilateral variation of the contract cannot be considered licit and shall be disregarded.
48.
On account of the abovementioned considerations, the Chamber noted that the
outstanding remuneration requested by the player in his claim is contractually agreed and
that its default remained undisputed by the club. As a consequence and based on the
general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent
is liable to pay to the player the following amounts:
a. EUR 77,223 as the partial salary of March 2020;
Page 10
REF FPSD-708
b. EUR 120,223 as the partial salary of April 2020;
c. EUR 192,223 as the partial salary of May 2020;
d. EUR 115,223 as the partial salary of June 2020;
e. EUR 16,223 as the partial salary of July 2020;
f. EUR 222,223 as the full salary of November 2020;
g. EUR 222,223 as the full salary of December 2020;
h. EUR 222,223 as the full salary of January 2021;
i.
EUR 500,000 as the first instalment of the signing fee; and
j.
SAR 151,000 as accommodation costs.
49.
Additionally, the DRC, in line with its constant jurisprudence as well as the requests of relief
of the player, decided to grant interest at the rate of 5% per annum on said amounts as
from their due dates (i.e. the following day upon which they fell due) until the date of
effective payment.
50.
Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention 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.
51.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber observed
that no such clause exists in the contract at stake.
52.
As a consequence, the DRC 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 nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
Page 11
REF FPSD-708
53.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment
contract until its expiry date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of
EUR 2,611,115 (i.e. salaries from February to June 2021, plus the second and the third
instalments of the signing fee) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
54.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
agreement 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.
55.
Indeed, the player found employment with Al Dhafra. In accordance with the pertinent
employment agreement, the player was entitled to the monthly salary of USD 36,000 during
2021. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the
approx. amount of EUR 147,500.
56.
Therefore, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 2,463,615 to
the player (i.e. EUR 2,611,115 minus EUR 147,500) as compensation for breach of contract
in the present matter. For the sake of completeness, the DRC highlighted that the
termination of the contract had not taken place on account of overdue payables.
57.
With regard to the claimed interest, the Chamber, applying the constant practice of the
DRC decided to award the player 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from the date of
the claim (i.e. 30 January 2021).
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
58.
Finally, the Chamber referred to par. 1 lit. a) and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
59.
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.
60.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
Page 12
REF FPSD-708
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
61.
The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
62.
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. 24bis par. 8
of the Regulations.
d.
Costs
63.
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
64.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
65.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-708
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Makhete Diop, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Shabab, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 77,223 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 120,223 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 192,223 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 115,223 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 16,223 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 222,223 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 222,223 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 222,223 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 500,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 January 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- SAR 151,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 January 2020
until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 2,463,615 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30
January 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
Page 14
REF FPSD-708
5.
Pursuant to article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 days of notification of this
decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration the ban shall
be of 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
paid by the end of the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15
REF FPSD-708
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 16