Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-8998
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 1 June 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Gafar Adefolarin Durosinmi
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Calum Beattie (Scotland), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Gafar Adefolarin Durosinmi, Nigeria
Represented by Mr Loizos Hadjidemetriou
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Uthai Thani FC, Thailand
Represented by Islam Hisham & Partners Law Firm
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-8998
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 July 2022, the Nigerian player Gafar Adefolarin Durosinmi (hereinafter the player) and
the Thai club Uthai Thani FC (hereinafter the club) concluded an employment agreement
(hereinafter the Employment Agreement) valid until 30 April 2023.
2.
In Clause 4 of the Employment Agreement, the player and the club (jointly referred to as
the parties) agreed upon the following financial conditions:
−
−
−
3.
THB (Thai Baht) 170,000 “net amount before deducting expenses and taxes” / month
Flight ticket for player THB 50,000 end of season;
Bonuses:
o THB 80,000 for 15 goals;
o THB 30,000 for 10 assist;
o THB 5,000 for match win if the player starts at first 11;
o 2 months salary in case of promotion to T1.
In Clause 5.1 of the Employment Agreement, the following provision was stipulated:
“The Player acknowledges and agrees that the period specified in this agreement may be
terminated in any of the following cases: (…)
6. In other case as specified in the rules and regulation of the Club that are always in effect. If
this agreement is expired or terminated by the reason stated in article 5.1, the player shall have
no right to claim or receive any compensation from the Club before the period specified in the
agreement for other reasons. In addition to those stated in Article 5.1, the Player will be paid
one month salary as stated in this agreement.”
4.
In Clause 5.2 of the Employment Agreement, the following provision was stipulated:
“The Player agrees to the Club to deduct incomes taxes and expenses as required by Thai Laws.”
“The Player agreed that the Club withholds 10% of salary in case of the Player absents training
(…)”.
5.
There is a mutual termination agreement on file dated 29 December 2022, which reads as
follows: “The Club and Mr. Durosinmi Hafar Adefolarin don’t have any financial obligations and
liberate from each others from then 1 January 2023”. The termination agreement is merely
signed by the club.
6.
On 30 – 31 December 2022, the club send a WhatsApp message to the player that a
different foreign player will replace him. In the same exchange, the club proposed to
terminate the Employment Agreement by paying the player one monthly salary.
Nonetheless, the player did not agree to that, requesting the residual value of the contract
the THB 50,000 as “ticket money”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-8998
7.
On 31 December 2022, the player sent a letter to the club informing the latter that the
intention to terminate the contract would be without just cause.
8.
On 1 January 2023, the club asserted that it could not provide the player “playing time (…)
at our Club in the second part of the League” and stating that it had the right to loan him.
9.
On the same day, the player was removed from the group chat, by which the club
communicated with the rest of the team. What is more, as of 2 January 2023, the player
was allegedly removed from the full training session with the rest of the team, having to
train by himself with the physical trainer.
10. On 2 January 2023, the player requested to be reinstated to the training.
11. On the same day, the club alleged that the contract termination was supposedly his idea,
and that the possible non-registration would be a decision of the management and coach
which would not constitute a breach of contract.
12. In the following days, the player was not reinstated in the full training sessions.
13. On 3 January 2023, the player reiterated its request to be reinstated and pointed out that
he has right to be registered. In its reply on 4 January 2023, the club asserted that it merely
followed the rules.
14. On 5 January 2023, the player persisted to be participating in the team trainings and
complained that he was not invited to the official photo shoot. In this respect, the player
seeked the club’s clarifications as to his role in the team. In reply thereto, the club answered
that the player should follow the instructions of the coach.
15. On 6 January 2023, the player again requested to be reinstated to the team and inquired
about his registration. In its reply on 7 January 2023, the club reiterated that it followed the
rules.
16. Until 11 January 2023, the player allegedly trained alone as per the instructions of the club.
17. On 11 January 2023, the player sent a letter to the club by which he requested the following:
“a) Ensure that he could train the entire training sessions with the rest of the first team;
b) Confirm in clear terms that he will not be deregistered for the second part of the competition
and that it counted on his services for the remaining time on the contract;
c) Reinstate him in the Line group”.
18. The club failed to reply to the above-mentioned letter and in an official match on
15 January 2023, the player was not participating due to the foreign quota.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-8998
19. On 16 January 2023, the player requested the club to explain the foreign quota as well as
to be reinstated.
20. Allegedly, the player did not attend trainings as of 17 January 2023.
21. On 17 January 2023, the club replied to the player, merely referring to the choices of the
coach.
22. On the same day, the registration period in Thailand ended.
23. On 19 January 2023, the player terminated the Employment Agreement with the club.
24. On 28 January 2023, the player requested his documentation in order to be able to sign a
new contract in the future.
25. On the same day, the club contested the legitimacy of the player’s termination and
informed the player that he will merely receive pro rata salary of 15 days of January 2023
salary since he was absent for the rest of month.
26. Furthermore, on 30 January 2023, the club informed the player that he should return the
car and that he will make a payment of USD 50/day as from the termination of the contract.
27. The player did not sign a new contract during the overlapping period.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
28. On 23 January 2023, 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 / claim
29. The requests for relief of the player were the following:
“the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to rule that the has a just cause to terminate the
employment contract and to order that the Club must pay to the Player the following
amounts:
− THB 730,000 as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest as from the
date of the termination
− THB 1,020,000 as compensation on the basis of the specificity of sport + 5% interest
as from the date of the termination
− THB 80,000 and THB 30,000 as bonus payments + 5% interest as from the date of
the termination
− THB 80,000 for win bonusses for the remaining matches + 5% interest as from the
date of the termination
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-8998
−
−
THB 340,000 for the promotion to the first league + 5% interest as from the date
of the termination
USD 5,000 for legal costs”.
30. The player argued that the club clearly lost interest in him already in December 2022, when
it suggested a mutual termination of the contract.
31. In this respect, the player argued since he did not agree to the one-sided termination
agreement, the club “adopted an abusive set of bullying tactics to force the Player out of his
contract, which is contrary to art. 14 par. 2 of the FIFA RSTP. The following means were used by
the Club:
a. Sending an already signed termination agreement in which the parties would no longer
have any claims against each other
b. Isolating the player from the rest of the team in training
c. Excluding the player from the Line communication group
d. Not confirming that they would count on his services for the remainder of the season
e. Playing three other foreign players and therefore exceeding the foreigner quota.”
32. The player firstly asserted that the isolation from the team already gives him just cause to
terminate the contract.
33. The player further pointed to the jurisprudence of the CAS and DRC, that it a fundamental
right of the player to be registered. In this regard, the player provided for evidence that the
national rules allow for three foreign players and that other players (excluding him) in the
club were registered as they participated in an official match.
34. Based on the above, the player was of the opinion that he had just cause to terminate the
contract.
35. In his calculations, the player provided the following break-down:
−
−
−
−
“TBH 730,000 is due as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to 4 salaries
of January, February, March and April 2023 (4 x TBH 170,000) as well as the flight ticket,
which value was set in the contract on TBH 50,000.”
“TBH 1,020,000 for additional damages based on the specificity of sport since the Club
acted in clear bad faith which has resulted in a situation that the Player is not being able
to exercise his profession, therewith damaging the Player’s fitness, market value and
career opportunities.”
TBH 80,000 and TBH 30,000 for “bonuses for goals and assists given that those
conditions were prevented from happening due to the bad faith of the club.”
“THB 5,000 per win. Given that there would still be 16 matches to play, this would result
in the amount of TBH 80,000. In addition, given that the Player would be paid two
monthly salaries if the Club would obtain promotion, another amount of THB 340,000 is
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-8998
due. Also these amounts are relevant in this procedure given that due to the breaches
and bad faith behaviour of the Club, the Player was unable to obtain these goals.”
b. Position of the club / counterclaim
36. In its reply, the club submitted a counterclaim against the player with the following
request for relief:
“1) To reject the Player's claim in full.
2) To accept the Club’s counterclaim against the Player and decide as follows:
A) Essentially:
1. To consider that the Player liable for the breach without just cause of the Employment
Contract.
2. To condemn the Player to pay an amount of Bath 170,000-/ as agreed compensation
according to article 5.1.6 of the Contract.
3. To condemn the Player to pay an amount of Bath 200,000-/ as compensation for the loss
of the loan transfer fee.
4. To condemn the Player to pay an amount of Bath 52,500-/ as a car’s rent, for using it for
30 days without having any legal right after termination of the Contract.
5. To condemn the Player to pay interests at a rate of five percent (5%) per annum over entire
amounts requested from the due date of each payment until the date of the effective
payment.
B) First alternatively: To accept the Player’s claim partially and to establish that he has entitled
to receive a mere amount of Bath 167,750-/ as an agreed compensation according to article
5.1.6 of the Contract.
C) Third alternatively: To accept the Player’s claim partially and to establish that he has
entitled to receive a mere amount of Bath 312,258-/ after mitigation of the compensation
according to the factors mentioned above.
3) To fix a sum of USD (5,000-/) “five thousand dollars”, to be paid by the Player to the Club,
to help him in the payment of its legal fees and costs.
4) As a consequence of the above, to condemn the Player to pay all expenses and costs of the
present proceedings, if any.”
37. The club argued that:
“a) The Club was dealing with the Player in a high level of good faith, and never requested
him to terminate the Contract.
b) According to article 5 of the Contract, the Club provided the Player with a loan offer with
features better than he was getting in the Club, but he refused it without any justifying reason.
c) Based on the Player’s wishes, the Club prepared a termination document to terminate the
Contract mutually in accordance with article 5.6.1 of the Contract by paying the Player one
month's salary as compensation as they have agreed in the Contract, but later on, he refused
to comply with it.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-8998
d) After the Player refused to be loaned to another club, and refused to make a mutual
termination according to the Contract provision, The Club’s management put a lot of pressure
on the head coach to keep the Player with the team, and indeed it is happened, although the
Player’s misbehaviour towards the Coach in several occasions.
e) The Player never trained alone, and he failed to provide any single evidence proving that,
but he was trained with a group of players at the same time with the rest of the team under
the leader of the physical trainer to doing training program which has been made for the
Player
f) The Player received all his financial rights until the date of termination.
g) The Player used the Club’s car for 30 days after terminating the Contract without having
any legal rights.
h) The Player failed to submit such single evidence proving that he was following the head
coach’s instruction and training program.
i) The Player caused serious damage to the Club by losing the loan fee.
j) The Player was planning in bad faith to terminate the contract.”
38. What is more, the club was of the opinion that under the circumstances, the de-registration
alone does not give the player just cause to terminate the contract.
39. The club alleged that it was the player who “created all those problems” when “he refused to
respect the contractual obligation by refusing to accept the loan offer that brought from the
Club to him, and when he even refused to terminate the Contract mutually according to article
5.6.1 of the Contract.”
40. The club argued that also the player’s calculations provided in the claim are not correct and
pointed to the compensation clause 5.1 of the Employment Agreement, Clause 5.2 of the
Employment Agreement (tax and deduction for absence) as well as to the fact that a
payment of THB 89,467 was made to the player as a salary of January 2023. The club also
rejected the argumentation of the player that he should be entitled to an additional
compensation of six months as well as to the conditional payments.
41. In its counterclaim, the club provided for the following break-down:
−
−
−
−
one month's salary of THB 170,000 as compensation;
TBH 200,000 as a lost damage head (loan fee);
TBH 52,500 “as a result of using the car without having any legal basis”;
USD 5,000 as legal costs.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-8998
c. Position of the player / reply to the counterclaim
42. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player referred to the facts of the case and argued that
“the dispute started when the Club wrote on Line to the Player on 28 December 2022 that they
had replaced him.”
43. In this respect, the player strongly contested any of the alleged misbehaviour:
“i. There was no reason for the player to treat the coach badly (obviously, it was in his interest
to treat him well given that he wanted to play for the club)
ii. The apparent bad treatment has not been mentioned in any of the letters of the Club,
therefore it is clear that the Club retroactively makes up this argument to put the player in a
bad light.
iii. The statement of the coach cannot be considered objective evidence, given that he is still
under the employment of the club and therefore has a reason to repeat the club's
argumentation.
iv. The club mentioned that the coach informed the club many times that he does not want
the player to continue with the team and that he misbehaved but the club fails to submit any
proof of this.
v. Even if the player misbehaved (which he did not) the club should have followed the
procedure in the contract on misbehaviour.
vi. The Club never put the Player on notice for any misbehaviour. In the first email they sent
back to the player's former lawyer, the club merely indicated it could not guarantee playing
time, they have the right to loan him, that he breached the contract by not wanting the loan,
but that they could still organise training for him.“
44. The player further contested that he “can be forced to join a club against his liking.” In any
event, he pointed to the text exchange between the parties and highlighted that the club
is “taking the conversation out of context.”
45. Regarding the separate training, the player pointed out that this was never “for a specified
period of time; the player was simply excluded from the team for the rest of the season and he
was not registered.”
46. In this respect, the player summarized that “the club does not dispute that:
a. The player was excluded from the main squad;
b. The player was replaced by another foreign player.
c. The player was deregistered”
47. As to the calculations provided by the club, the player asserted:
−
“art. 5.1.6 of the contract relating to “no compensation or that of 1 month” is neither
reciprocal nor proportionate”;
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-8998
−
−
−
−
“As to the taxes, Art. 4 of the contract clearly stipulates that the amounts are paid to the
player as NET amounts”;
What is more, “the club has not provided any evidence that this is the tax rate, the player
refutes it and the club has also not shown that it would still need to pay tax. Also, the
amount to be awarded will be awarded as compensation, which is a different component
as income”;
“the player confirms having received the amount of THB 89,467 after he already filed a
claim”, i.e. “this amount can be deducted from the amount of THB 730,000, leaving a
balance of THB 640,533 for January plus 5% interest as from the date of termination“;
“As to the deduction of the 10%, the player refutes he was unjustifiably absent for 3 days
and in any case, the club never started a disciplinary procedure against him”, i.e. “the
club cannot now retroactively deduct 10% of his salary“.
48. Finally, the player reiterated its request of relief, acknowledging the amount paid by the
club in January 2023:
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
“THB 640,533 as compensation for breach of contract + 5% interest as from the date of
the termination
THB 1,020,000 as compensation on the basis of the specificity of sport + 5% interest as
from the date of the termination
THB 80,000 and THB 30,000 as bonus payments + 5% interest as from the date of the
termination
THB 80,000 for win bonusses for the remaining matches + 5% interest as from the date
of the termination
THB 340,000 for the promotion to the first league + 5% interest as from the date of the
termination
USD 5,000 for legal costs
impose sporting sanctions on the club for the blatant breach of contract”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
49. 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 23 January 2023 and submitted
for decision on 1 June 2023. 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.
50. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-8998
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 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 player from
Nigeria and a club from Thailand.
51. 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 (March 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 January 2023, the October 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
52. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
53. 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
54. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that this is a claim of a player against a club concerning a
termination of a contract on the basis of deregistration. The club lodged a parallel
counterclaim.
55. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to establish if the player had
just cause to terminate the contract on 19 January 2023.
56. At this point, the Chamber closely looked at the situation between the parties prior to the
termination of the employment relationship by the player and recalled that termination is
an ultima ratio measure and only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-8998
permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a
contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which
can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual
duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract.
57. The DRC then observed that it remained undisputed between the parties that the player
was not registered within the respective registration period, i.e. that it can be seen from
the evidence on file that the club had no interest to allow the player to compete in official
matches.
58. The Chamber then remarked that this consists of a violation of the player’s personality
rights: a club – as an employer – has the duty to protect the personality rights of the player
– as an employee. What is more, the Chamber added that the career development of a
footballer may be prejudiced as a result of inactivity and thus, the club has a duty to allow
its players to engage in the activity for which they have been in principle employed and are
qualified for.
59. In this regard, the DRC has pointed to its jurisprudence by which it was confirmed on
multiple occasions that “among a player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract,
is not only his right to a timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training
and to be given the possibility to compete with his fellow teammates in the team’s official
matches”.
60. In addition, the Chamber observed that it is evident from the evidence on file that the
player has been unjustifiably excluded from the training as documented by the persistent
correspondence by the player to the club. At this point, the DRC noted that such exclusion
was never limited in time. Regarding the allegations of the club concerning the
misbehaviour of the player and his inclusion in the trainings, the DRC took note that no
evidence was provided to support the club’s position.
61. Considering the foregoing, the DRC concluded that the player had just cause to terminate
the contract, especially given that he requested his registration by various letters. The
Chamber then highlighted that whereas the clubs sent various messages to the player,
none of them was the registration of the latter, but rather a termination of the contract. In
this respect, the Chamber decided that the argumentation of the club cannot be upheld
due to the severity of the breach and rejected the counterclaim of the club.
ii. Consequences
62. 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.
63. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to THB 80,533
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-8998
(THB 170,000 minus THB 89,467), corresponding to the residual value of January 2023. In
this respect, the Chamber wished to remark that no salary deduction of 10% shall apply as
no due disciplinary process has been initiated.
64. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. THB 80,533.
65. 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 the player interest at the rate of
5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 19 January 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
66. 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.
67. 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
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
68. 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.
69. 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 contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of THB 560,000 (i.e. THB 170,000 times 3 plus THB 50,000)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-8998
70. 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.
71. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
72. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
73. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of THB 560,000 as the residual value of the contract.
74. 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 19 January 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-8998
78. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
79. 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
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-8998
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Gafar Adefolarin Durosinmi, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Uthai Thani FC, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- TBH 80,533 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 January 2023
until the date of effective payment;
- TBH 560,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 19 January 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
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 / Counter-Claimant 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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-8998
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. 17