Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15779
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 August 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Milos
Milovic
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Stijn BOEYKENS (Belgium), Member
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
CLAIMANT:
Milos Milovic, Montenegro
Represented by Hrvoje Raic
RESPONDENT:
Qingdao Hainiu FC, China PR
Represented by Kiera Zhuang
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15779
I. Facts of the case
1. On 26 January 2024, the Montenegrin player Milos Milovic (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Chinese club Qingdao Hainiu FC (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract) valid as from
1 February 2024 until 31 December 2025.
2. In this sense, article 1 of the Employment Contract provided (quoted verbatim):
“(…) if the case where the contract is expired, but the season hasn’t finished yet, the contract will
be automatically extended to the end of the season. The salary will not be calculated or paid in
that case, no matter whether there are additional games or not, but the win and draw bonus
will be given according to Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Contract.”
3. Article 3 of the Employment Contract set forth (quoted verbatim):
“Article 3 Salaries and Bonuses:
3.1 The Parties agree to calculate the salary on an annual basis (the whole season of 2024).
During the term of this Contract, [the Club] shall pay [the Player] the annual (the whole season
of 2024) salaries as follows (the Parties may agree or currency unit):
The first calendar year (season 2024) From 01/02/2024 day/month/year until 31/12/2024
(day/month/year) which shall amount to 491766 USD (FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY ONE
THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY SIX) before tax, 300000 USD / THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND) after tax for reference; the monthly salary is 44706 USD ( FORTY FOUR THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED AND SIX) before tax, about 27272 USD (TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TWO) after tax for reference.
The second calendar year (season 2025)
The Parties agree to calculate the salary on an annual basis (the whole season of 2025). During
the term of this Contract, [the Club] shall pay [the Player] the annual (the whole season of 2025)
salaries as follows (the Parties may agree on currency unit):
From 01/01/2025 (day/month/year) until 31/12/2025 (day/month/year) which shall amount to
491160 USD (FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY) before
tax, 3000 USD (THREE THOUSAND) after tax for reference, the monthly salary is 40930 (FOURTY
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY before tax, 25000 USD (TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND) after
tax for reference.
3.2 The annual salaries shall be paid to [the Player] in equal monthly installments. [The Club]
shall pay the salary for the last month on the 28th day of every month. In the event the above-
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15779
mentioned payment due date falls on a statutory holiday, the payment due date shall be
extended to the first working day following the holiday.
Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the method of calculating the average daily salary is as
follows: the amount of monthly salary divided by the number of calendar days in the month.”
4. Clause 3.3.1 stipulated that the Player was entitled to the following bonuses (quoted
verbatim):
“3.3.1 Win and draw match bonus: Win match bonus (if playing time of [the Player] exceeds 80%,
including 80%) is 3000 USD (after tax). Draw match bonus (if playing time of [the Player] exceeds
80% including 80%) is 1000 USD (after tax). There is no bonus for losing. On the condition that
[the Player’s] playing time is less than 80% (below 80%) of the total full match time, [the Club]
will multiply the full-game bonus proportionally by the time of [the Player’s] participation to
calculate the Player’s] game bonus.
Win and draw bonus is calculated on a monthly basis and are paid every three months.”
5. Clause 4.3 established (quoted verbatim):
“4.3 During the contract period, [the Club] shall provide one dormitory for [the Player] in the
training base. If [the Player] needs to rent an apartment, [the Club] shall pay [the Player] a
monthly housing subsidy of RMB 3000 according to the period of this contract. The housing
subsidy shall be paid by [the Club] to [the Player] in two installments each year. The first payment
of the housing subsidy shall be paid within three working days after the effective date of this
contract, and the second payment shall be paid within three working days after the end of the
summer transfer window of the current season. If this contract is terminated prematurely, [the
Player] shall refund [the Club] the housing subsidy according to the termination time of the
contract. The payment of rental agency fee, water, electricity, property management fee, internet
and building maintenance fee should be borne by [the Player]. During the contract period. [the
Club] is responsible for [the Player’s] transportation between apartment and training base.”
6. Clause 9.7.6 provided (quoted verbatim):
“9.7.6 The Parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that, in accordance Art. 17 of FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the event the [the Player] terminates the
contract without just cause, or [the Club] terminates the contract with just cause due to a breach
of contract of [the Player], [the Player] will be liable to compensate [the Club] with the amount
of 250000 USD as liquidated damages. In the above case, should give the notice to [the Player]
10 days before to correct [the Player’s] breach and ask [the Player] to compensate the breach. If
[the Player] fails to correct, [the Club] will have the right to terminate the contract immediately
and ask [the Player] for the compensation according to this article.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15779
7. On 10 April 2024, the Respondent draw 0-0 in a match against MZ Hakka in the Chinese
Super League.
8. On 26 April 2024, the Respondent won a match with score of 1-3 against SZ Peng City in the
Chinese Super League.
9. On 6 May 2024, the Player underwent an MRI with the following diagnosis:
“Imaging diagnosis:
Injury of the lateral meniscus body of the left knee joint with peripheral gression: Degeneration
of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus of the left knee joint:
Edema of the left hamstring tendon:
A small amount of effusion of the left knee joint; Edema of suprapatellar anterior fat pad of the
left knee joint.”
10. On 10 May 2024, the Respondent draw 2-2 in a match against Nantong Zhiyun in the Chinese
Super League.
11. Between 18 and 22 May 2024, the parties had several WhatsApp conversations in which,
inter alia, they discussed the scheduling of the Player’s knee surgery, which finally took
place on 22 May 2024.
12. On 24 May 2024, the Player was discharged of the hospital after his surgery.
13. According to the Player, in June 2024 he trained with the rest of the team.
14. Between 31 May and 8 August of an unspecified year, which, according to the Player, was
2024, he had a conversation through WhatsApp with the Club and an alleged Club’s doctor
(hereinafter: Doctor Chen) regarding his rehabilitation.
15. Between 22 and 27 June of an unspecified year, which, according to the Player, was 2024,
the Club’s first team assistant coach and the Player held conversations through WhatsApp
where apparently the Player requested private training to recover.
16. On an unspecified date, conversation through WhatsApp took place between the Player and
the Club’s first team assistant coach and interpreter, where the Player explained how he
felt and that he would continue doing physical therapy but would go to the pitch the next
day.
17. According to the Club, on 8 July 2024, Mr. Zhe Zhang, who, according to the Club, was one
of the Player’s agents, held conversations with both the Player and the Club regarding the
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15779
situation of the Player, his injury, rehabilitation, and the possibility to loan the Player to
other clubs while he recovered.
18. On 5 July 2024, the Club issued a document regarding the Player entitled “Evaluation Form
for Leaving Players” signed by the Club’s head coach and letterheaded with the Club’s name
and colours. The content of the document reads as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Due to Milos’ slow recovery after meniscus surgery and still unable to meet the competition level
of the Chinese Super League consider to withdraw Milo’s league registration and adding new
foreign players.”
19. According to the Player, on 5 July 2024 he was excluded from the Club’s training sessions.
20. On an unspecified date, the Player had a conversation through WhatsApp with a person
named Terry and another person named Luis, who, according to the Player were members
of the Club, regarding the Player’s training schedule with the reserve team and just one
coach. The conversation reads as follows:
First conversation:
Terry: “Ok (…)
What’s up brate? Baby sleep
The Player: Nothing bro
I was trying to explain what massages I want in spa.
Terry: Ok Brate, sorry my phone in silence because baby sleep, see you tomorrow, good night
The Player: No problem.
Terry: Good evening brate, tomorrow you have training on 11:00
One coach training with you
The Player: ok.”
End of the First Conversation.
Second Conversation:
Luis:
“@Milos Milovic Hi Milos, today 10:10am training in the base with reserve team, you can contact
PJ, Pls noted.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15779
@Milos Milovic Hi Milos, today 15-17 o'clock training in the base with reserve team, you can
contact PJ, Pls noted.
The Player: training tomorrow what time?
@Milos Milovic Hi Milos, tomorrow 14 o'clock training in the base with PJ, Pls noted.
The Player: ok.”
21. On 2 August 2024, the Player sent a default notice to the Club stating inter alia:
“(…) b) that the Club has failed to pay to the Player outstanding remuneration in total of net USD
32,272.00, broken down as follows:
- salary for June 2024 in net USD 27,272.00 which matured on 28/7/2024, and
- bonus of net USD 1,000.00 for Club's draw in the match against MZ Hakka played on 10/4/2024,
which matured on 1/8/2024, and
- bonus of net USD 3,000.00 for Club's win in the match against SZ Peng City played on
26/4/2024,
which matured on 1/8/2024, and
- bonus of net USD 1,000.00 for Club’s draw in the match against Nantong Zhiyun played on
10/5/2024, which matured on 1/8/2024; and
c) that starting from 25 July 2024, the Club excluded the Player from the training sessions of the
first team of the Club; and
d) that the Player has been de-registered from the Club’s squad and is thus unable to participate
in Club’s official matches.”
(…) On this note, the Player shall emphasize that it is obvious from the behaviour of the Club (i.e.
failure to pay outstanding remuneration stipulated above, exclusion of the Player from the first
team of the Club without any reason and de-registration of the Player) that the Club acting in
breach of the applicable FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: FIFA
RSTP) and at the same time breaching the Player’s personality rights in the sense of CAS
jurisprudence.
(…) In this context, the Player kindly asks the Club:
- to immediately, and in any event within next 15 days to re-register the Player with
the Club and reintegrate him in the training process of the first team of the Club,
and
- to pay him outstanding remuneration in total of net USD 32,272.00 (thirty-two
thousand and two hundred and seventy-two US dollars), within the next 15 days.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15779
(…) Should the Club fail to meet the aforementioned requests within the given deadline, then the
Player reserves the right to unilaterally terminate the Employment Contract with just cause, and
to file a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal against the Club whereas the Player shall request
pertinent outstanding remuneration and compensation in accordance with article 17. of FIFA
RSTP, as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions against the Club, all due to the
aforementioned severe breaches of the Employment Contract committed by the Club (…)”
22. Between 7 and 9 August 2024, the Club paid a total amount of CNY 216,387.35 to the Player.
23. On 17 August 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s default notice stating (quoted verbatim):
“Dear Mr. Milos Milovic and Mr. Hrvoje Raic,
Given that Mr. Milos Milovic underwent surgery in May 2024, Mr. Milos Milovic's recovery from
injury was not ideal, and Mr. Milos Milovic's physical condition did not reach the level required
for the game until the summer transfer window closed on July 15th. After unanimous decision
by the coaching staff,
Qingdao Hainiu Football Club cancelled the first team registration for Mr. Milos Milovic in the
Chinese Super League. But our club has paid salaries and bonuses on schedule according to the
contract and arranged reasonable training for Mr. Milos Milovic. In the current situation, Mr.
Milos Milovic has no right to unilaterally terminate the contract.”
24. On 20 August 2024, the Player terminated the Employment Contract arguing that while the
Club paid CNY 216,387.35 equal to USD 30,272, it failed to pay him USD 2,000
corresponding to the bonuses. Moreover, the Player stated that the Club de-registered him
and remained silent about reintegrating him to the Club’s first team squad.
25. On 23 August 2024, the Club replied to the termination letter sent by the Player on 20 August
2024. The reply reads as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Mr. Milos Milovic ( "Player'’ ) is still a registered player during the contract period of Qingdao
Hainiu Football Club ( “Club" ). The Player has been absent from training for no reason on July
30. Aug 14, Aug15, also from August 18th to August 23rd without notifying the Club. We, Qingdao
Hainiu Football Club ( "Club" ), hereby to request as follow.
The Player must immediately return to the team and participate in the club's training sessions
before 5 p.m. on 26/8/2024; The Player need to reply as soon as possible within 36 hours, if the
Player still refuses to participate in the training sessions before 5 p. m. on 26/8/2024, or insists
on unilaterally terminating the contract, the Club will hold him responsible for terminating the
contract without just cause and will make claim against the Player for the loss suffered by the
Club.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15779
26. On 27 August 2024, the Club received an ITC request from the Federation of Azerbaijan on
behalf of the Azerbaijani club Sumgait FC (hereinafter: Sumgait FC).
27. On 28 August 2024, the Club rejected the above-mentioned ITC request.
28. On 3 September 2024, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber granted the request
from the Federation of Azerbaijan to register the Player in Sumgait FC, without prejudice
to any possible decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on the substance of any
potential or existing dispute between the Club and the Player, as well as Sumgait FC.
29. On 5 September 2024, the Player concluded a new employment contract with Sumgait FC
valid as from 22 August 2024 until 30 June 2025 for a total remuneration of USD 36,000 net
distributed in 9 instalments of USD 4,000.
30. The Player informed FIFA that after the aforementioned contract expired he has remained
unemployed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
31. On 27 August 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
32. The Player first argued that the parties concluded the Employment Contract, by means of
which the Club undertook to pay him USD 27,272 net as salary for 2024, as well as USD
3,000 net for every won match and USD 1,000 net for draws. Nonetheless, the Player stated
that as from 2 August 2024, the Club had failed to pay him USD 32,272 net on the due
dates, broken down as follows (quoted verbatim):
-
-
“Salary for June 2024 in net USD 27,272.00 which matured on 28/7/2024, and
Bonus of net USD 1,000.00 for Club’s draw in the match against MZ Hakka played on 10/4/2024,
which matured on 1/8/2024, and
bonus of net USD 3,000.00 for Club’s win in the match against SZ Peng City played on 26/4/2024,
which matured on 1/8/2024 , and
bonus of net USD 1,000.00 for Club’s draw in the match against Nantong Zhiyun played on
10/5/2024, which matured on 1/8/2024.”
33. Additionally, the Player argued that, on 25 July 2024, he was excluded from the Club’s first
team training sessions.
34. The Player argued that after having put the Club in default on 2 August 2024 and granting
15 days to remedy the breach, the Club only paid CNY 216,387.35 equal to USD 30,272 out
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15779
of the USD 32,272 net requested. Moreover, the Player stated that on its reply dated 17
August 2024, the Club acknowledged that he was de-registered by the Club.
35. With his claim, the Player provided evidence demonstrating that the transfer window in
China opened on 17 June 2024 and closed on 15 July 2024. Therefore, the Player argued
that the above constituted a breach of contract for which he terminated the Employment
Contract on 20 August 2024.
36. The Player summarised and broke down the amounts requested as follows (quoted
verbatim):
“a. outstanding remuneration in net total of USD 46,866.83 (forty-six thousand, eight hundred
and sixty-six US dollars and eighty-three cents) broken-down as follows:
- bonuses of net USD 2,000.00, which matured on 1/8/2024, and
- July 2024 salary in net USD 27,272.00 which matured on 20/8/2024, and salary for the period
from 1/8/2024 until 20/8/2024 in the amount of net USD17,594.83, which matured on
20/8/2024, and
b. compensation in the sense of the article 17. of the FIFA RSTP in net total of USD 418.765.17
(four hundred eighteen thousand, seven hundred and sixty-five US dollars and seventeen cents)
CNY 60.800.00 (sixty thousand and eight hundred Chinese Yuan Renminbi) as a residual value
of monthly salaries and monthly accommodation expenses for the period from 21/8/2024 until
31/12/2025 in accordance with the Employment contract;
while at the same time the Respondent also has to pay all taxes and/or other surcharges on top
and above all the above-mentioned net amounts and also provide the Claimant with the
corresponding tax certificates concerning the payment of taxes on top of all the above specified
net amounts alongside all the net amounts already paid to the Player during the term of the
employment relationship respectively, whereas compensation can also be specified as total
before tax of USD 685,847.42 (six hundred and eighty-five thousand, eight hundred and fortyseven US dollars and forty-two cents) plus CNY 60,800.00.”
37. Consequently, the Player requested (quoted verbatim):
“IV. Prayers for relief
In view of the foregoing, the honorable chamber is respectfully requested:
I. to ascertain that the Claimant terminated the Employment contract signed with the
Respondent with just cause; and
II.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15779
a) to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant outstanding remuneration of net
USD 46,866.83 (forty-six thousand, eight hundred and sixty-six US dollars and eighty-three
cents), which matured as follows:
- USD 2,000.00, on 1/8/2024, and
- USD 27,272.00, on 20/8/2024, and
- USD 17,594.83, on 20/8/2024; 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 USD
418,765.17 (four hundred eighteen thousand, seven hundred and sixty-five US dollars and
seventeen cents) and CNY 60,800.00 (sixty thousand and eight hundred Chinese Yuan Renminbi)
which matured on 20/8/2024, 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 lll.a), III. b) and III. c) herein,
d) to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant compensation in total of USD
685,847.42 (six hundred and eighty-five thousand, eight hundred and forty-seven US dollars and
forty-two cents) and CNY 60,800.00 (sixty thousand and eight hundred Chinese Yuan Renminbi)
which matured on 20/8/2024, 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15779
IV. 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 Respondent
38. On 2 October 2024, the Club provided its position to the claim and filed a counterclaim
against the Player.
39. In its reply, the Club argued that on 11 May 2024, the Player had an injury in the meniscus
and on 22 May 2024, he underwent surgery. In this respect, the Club argued that on 22
June 2024, the Player was taken into a private training session where he expressed
discomfort.
40. The Club argued that the Player was not fully recovered and on 4 July 2024 during a dinner
organized by the Club, the Player expressed to the coaches and general manager that he
was not going to be fit on time and expressed his acceptance for his registration to be
withdrawn.
41. The Club argued that following the assessment by the coaching staff, the Player’s
registration in the Chinese Super League was withdrawn. As evidence, the Club provided
written statements by the coaches Mr. Yasen Petrov and Mr. Xu Che, as well as from the
Club’s general manager Dong Zhang dated 20 September 2024, where they acknowledged
and stated that on 4 July 2024 during a dinner organized by the Club, the Player recognised
that he was not recovered from his injury and therefore was not able to train.
42. The Club argued that on 8 July 2024, the Player agreed to work in his recovery and to be
loaned to another club. In this sense, the Club alleged that since then, the Player was
absent from the training sessions and on 2 August 2024 he sent a default notice requesting
the payment of the monthly salary of June 2024 and the bonuses.
43. The Club argued and provided evidence that it paid the salary of June 2024 to the Player and
the bonuses. According to the Club, on 17 August 2024 it sent a reply to the Player’s default
notice clarifying that the withdrawal of his registration was agreed by all parties involved,
and on 23 August 2024, it replied to the Player’s termination letter stating that he was still
registered and he shall return to training.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15779
44. The Club provided evidence of a WhatsApp conversation that took place between 28 July
and 21 August of an unspecified year regarding the Club’s training sessions and the
absences of the Player.
45. The Club contended that it paid the Player the monthly salary of July 2024 on 26 August
2024 and, after that, it objected an ITC request regarding the Player’s new club.
46. In summary, the Club argued that the withdrawal of the Player’s registration was agreed
with him because of his injury and to comply with the Chinese Super League Regulations
about foreign players.
47. Therefore, the Club requested:
“For all the above facts and for the reason which may be further added during these
proceedings, the Respondent respectfully requests the honorable chamber to decide the
following relief:
For the Answer
- to reject the “Claimant’s Claim”;
- to deny the Claimant’s request for any outstanding remuneration, compensation,
accommodation expense along with the related tax certificate and interest; or, in a subordinate
way, to take into account any new employment contract the Claimant has entered into following
the termination of his employment relationship with the Respondent, and then mitigate the
above-mentioned amount; and
- to consolidate, if considered opportune, the present claim with the one lodged by the Club
against the Player whereby the Respondent asked a compensation of USD 418,765.17 for its
damages suffered;
For the Counter-Claim
- to accept the “Counter-Claim”;
- to ascertain that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated the Employment
Contract without just cause;
- to condemn the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to pay in favour of the Respondent/CounterClaimant compensation in the sense of the article 17. of the FIFA RSTP in net total of USD
418,765.17 (four hundred eighteen thousand, seven hundred and sixty-five US dollars and
seventeen cents) as a residual value of monthly salaries along with 5% per annum interest; and
to impose sporting sanctions against the Claimants, all in the light of FIFA RSTP.”
48. On 16 October 2024, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Club to provide the Bank
Account Registration Form (BARF) to complete its counterclaim by no later than 21 October
2024.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15779
49. On 28 October 2024, outside the granted deadline, the Club submitted the abovementioned BARF.
50. On 22 November 2024, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that the
counterclaim was considered withdrawn.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15779
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
51. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 27 August 2024 and submitted for decision
on 21 August 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
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.
52. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
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 Montenegrin player and a Chinese club.
53. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
54. 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
55. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15779
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
56. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the
Player argued that he terminated the Employment Contract with just cause because the
Club deregistered him. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the Player relies on the
Club’s reply on 17 August 2024 in response to his default notice dated 2 August 2024.
57. Conversely, the Chamber noted that, while the Club acknowledged the de-registration, it
also argued that it was agreed unanimously between the Player, his agents, the coaching
staff and the Club’s general manager due to the fact that the Player was not fully recovered
from the injury he suffered on 11 May 2024.
58. Taking into account the above, the Chamber observed that that the main point of
controversy relates to the deregistration of the Player.
59. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish (i) whether the
Player had just cause to terminate the Employment Contract; and (ii) if so, what the
consequences would be.
a) Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Employment Contract?
60. Firstly, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations:
“1. A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either
payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause. In
general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no longer reasonably
and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship.
2. Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or change the
terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a player or a club) to terminate the contract
with just cause.”
61. Additionally, the Chamber stressed that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has
established on numerous occasions that a premature contractual termination may only
arise where there has been a substantial or repeated breach of contract by the relevant
counterparty, and if there are more lenient measures for the parties to remedy their
contractual relationship, those measures should be turned to prior to unilaterally
terminating the contract. A premature unilateral termination of the Contract may only be
an ultima ratio measure.
a.1) What were the breaches committed by the Club?
I.
The alleged exclusion from the first team training sessions
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15779
62. For context, the Chamber noted that based on the evidence on file, the Player sustained an
injury on 11 May 2024 and underwent surgery on 22 May 2024.
63. Secondly, the Chamber observed that on one hand, the Player argued that on 25 July 2024
he was excluded from the first team. In this regard, the Player provided an undated
WhatsApp conversation where he was requested to do private sessions with a coach and
an undated video of him training by himself. On the other hand, the Club argued and
provided evidence that the Player was following a specific recovery plan after his surgery
at a rehabilitation centre under the supervision of the Club.
64. Based on the evidence on file, the Chamber noted that (i) it is undisputed that the Player
sustained an injury in May 2024 and (ii) that he was recovering from said injury.
65. Yet, the Chamber was of the opinion that the terms of the alleged exclusion from the Club’s
team training sessions were unclear. In this regard, the Chamber was unimpressed by the
evidence provided by the parties regarding the alleged exclusion.
66. Consequently, the Chamber determined that there was no evidence on file to conclude that
the alleged exclusion, if it existed, was arbitrary.
II.
The deregistration
67. The Chamber reiterated that the main point of controversy in the present dispute was the
Player’s deregistration. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the Commentary on the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2023 edition, p. 137) according to which:
“In line with the well-established approach of the DRC, a 2014 award confirmed that the
deregistration of a player to participate in a national championship entitles the player to
unilaterally terminate their contract with just cause, with no requirement to send a default
notice to the club. The rationale for this is that players have a fundamental right to train and to
be able to play official matches. In order for a player to be eligible to participate in organised
football, they must be registered to participate in championships for their club. If they are not
registered, they will not be able to play competitive football, irrespective of their commitment,
general attitude and fundamental rights. Even stronger language was used in a 2015 award,
where it was stated that deregistering the player constituted the “factual termination of the
employment contract”. In a 2018 award, CAS confirmed once again that deregistering a player
from participating in national championships is itself enough to justify premature termination
of the contract.”
68. In light of the above, the Chamber first emphasised that the deregistration is a severe
breach of the contractual obligations by a club and entitles the player to unilaterally
terminate their contract with just cause.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-15779
69. In this sense, the Chamber noted that, the Club in its reply to the claim acknowledged the
Player was deregistered but argued that such a deregistration was mutually agreed by the
parties involved. With this respect, the Club provided a WhatsApp conversation between
them, the Player and his agents, where the possibility of releasing or loaning the Player was
discussed. Nonetheless, the Chamber considered important to note that there was no
proof that the deregistration was agreed therein.
70. Moreover, the Club argued that according to the Regulations of the Chinese Super League,
it had to withdraw the Player’s registration to sign a new foreign player. In this sense, the
Chamber recalled that the Club argued that based on the agreement in this regard with
the Player, as well as the assessment made to the Player by their coaching staff, the Club
signed and submitted an Evaluation Form for Leaving Players to the Chinese Super League
that reads (quoted verbatim):
“Due to Milos’ slow recovery after meniscus surgery and still unable to meet the competition level
of the Chinese Super League consider to withdraw Milo’s league registration and adding new
foreign players.”
71. The Chamber pointed out that based on the aforementioned wording, there was no
indication that the above was agreed with the Player.
72. The Chamber also recalled that, on 2 August 2024 the Player sent a default notice to the
Club requesting, inter alia, to be re-registered.
73. The Chamber referred to the Club’s reply stating that (quoted verbatim):
“Given that Mr. Milos Milovic underwent surgery in May 2024, Mr. Milos Milovic's recovery from
injury was not ideal, and Mr. Milos Milovic's physical condition did not reach the level required
for the game until the summer transfer window closed on July 15th. After unanimous decision
by the coaching staff, Qingdao Hainiu Football Club cancelled the first team registration for Mr.
Milos Milovic in the Chinese Super League. But our club has paid salaries and bonuses on
schedule according to the contract and arranged reasonable training for Mr. Milos Milovic. In
the current situation, Mr. Milos Milovic has no right to unilaterally terminate the contract.”
74. Based on the above, the Chamber considered that that the Club acknowledged that it
deregistered the Player after a unanimous decision by the coaching staff, without
mentioning any involvement or agreement of the Player in that decision.
75. In this regard, the Chamber saw that, after that reply, the Player terminated the
Employment Contract due to the deregistration acknowledged by the Club.
76. In the Chamber’s opinion, while the Club argued that said deregistration was agreed with
the Player, it failed to provide corroborative evidence in this regard. In contrast, the
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-15779
Chamber found decisive that the Club in its reply to the default notice sent by the Player
acknowledged the deregistration without mentioning that he had agreed to it as argued.
77. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Club unilaterally deregistered the Player.
III.
The outstanding remuneration
78. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the Player argued that the Club failed to pay him
USD 32,272, corresponding to (quoted verbatim):
“-Salary for June 2024 in net USD 27,272.00 which matured on 28/7/2024, and
- Bonus of net USD 1,000.00 for Club’s draw in the match against MZ Hakka played on 10/4/2024,
which matured on 1/8/2024, and bonus of net USD 3,000.00 for Club’s win in the match against
SZ Peng City played on 26/4/2024, which matured on 1/8/2024 , and
- bonus of net USD 1,000.00 for Club’s draw in the match against Nantong Zhiyun played on
10/5/2024, which matured on 1/8/2024.”
79. In this context, the Chamber observed that the Player put the Club in default and requested
payment of the abovementioned amount within 15 days.
80. The Chamber noted that, according to the Player, he received CNY 216,387.35 equal to USD
30,272 between 7 and 9 August 2024 and the Club failed to pay him USD 2,000 net
corresponding to the match bonuses for draws.
81. In this line, the Chamber stressed that the Club argued and provided alleged untranslated
evidence of having paid the monthly salary of June 2024 and the win bonuses to the Player;
however, there was no mention nor evidence regarding the bonuses for draws amounting
to USD 2,000 net.
82. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, according to the Employment Contract, the
salary of June 2024 was due on 28 July 2024, while the Player provided evidence of having
met the conditions for the entitlement of the win bonus which match took place on 26 April
2024, as well as his entitlement for the bonuses for the draws on 10 April and 10 May 2024
respectively.
83. In this sense, the Chamber recalled that according to the Employment Contract the bonuses
were payable every three months.
84. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player was entitled to receive the amount of
USD 32,272 requested in his default notice. To this point, the DRC considered important to
mention that said amount was not equal to two monthly salaries in the sense of art. 14bis
of the Regulations, hence the Player would have not been able to terminate his contract on
the basis of said article.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-15779
a.2) Default notice and termination
85. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber underscored that, on 2 August 2024, the
Player put the Club in default and requested (i) the outstanding remuneration of USD
32,272 within 15 days; (ii) to immediately reintegrate him into the Club’s first team training
and re-register him; and (iii) in case the Club failed to do so, the Player would unilaterally
terminate the Employment Contract.
86. The Chamber also mentioned that on 20 August 2024, after the Club acknowledged the
deregistration and paid CNY 216,387.35, equal to USD 30,272, he terminated the
Employment Contract.
a.3) Conclusions
87. After the analysis of all the allegations and evidence on file, the Chamber concluded that:
(ii) Based on the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, the deregistration is considered
a severe breach of the contract by the Club, which could entitle the Player to terminate
his contract without sending a default notice. In this sense, the Chamber emphasised
that in this case, the Player put the Club in default requesting to be re-registered.
Moreover, the Club in its reply to the default notice acknowledged the deregistration
of the Player without mentioning that it was agreed with him as argued in the response
to the claim. Therefore, in the Chamber’s opinion, the undisputed deregistration, in
absence of any conclusive evidence to prove that it was mutually agreed by the parties,
was sufficient to considered that the Player terminated the Employment Contract with
just cause
(iii) The panel also concluded that even though the amounts that were outstanding at the
moment of the default notice sent by the Player to the Club were not equal to two
monthly salaries, which would have justified the termination under art 14bis, the Club
breached its contractual obligations by not paying the total amount requested by the
Player in said notice.
(iv) Lastly, regarding the alleged exclusion of the Player from the Club’s team training
sessions, the Chamber was not satisfied with the evidence on file to conclude that said
exclusion, if it existed, was arbitrary.
88. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber determined that the Player had just cause
to terminate the Employment Contract on 20 August 2024 due to his deregistration by the
Club.
ii. b) Consequences
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-15779
89. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
b.1) Outstanding salaries and match bonuses
90. 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 two salaries and
bonuses under the Employment Contract, amounting to USD 56,544 net.
b.1.2) Salary of July 2024
91. In regard to the salary of July 2024, the Chamber noted that the Club argued that it paid the
monthly salary of July 2024 totalling USD 27,272 net. Moreover, the Chamber noted that
the Club provided alleged proof of payment which was not translated into English.
92. To this point, the Chamber recalled that according to art.13 par.3 of the Procedural Rules:
“Any type of evidence may be produced. A chamber has ultimate discretion as to the weight
it gives to evidence. All the evidence upon which a party intends to rely must be filed in the
original language and, if applicable, translated into English, Spanish or French.”
93. Therefore, based on the above, the Chamber decided to disregard the alleged proof of
payment provided by the Respondent.
94. Then, the Chamber pointed out that, according to the Employment Contract, the salary was
payable on the 28th day of the following month. Nevertheless, considering that the Player
had already performed services for the month of July, and based on the standard practice
of the Football Tribunal, the DRC decided to award the Player USD 27,272 net as the
monthly salary of July 2024, with 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 20 August
2024 until the date of effective payment
b2.2) Salary of August 2024
95. In continuation, the Chamber noted that that the Player requested USD 17,594.83 that
according to him became due on 20 August 2024. In this respect, the Chamber observed
that this amount corresponds to the prorated salary of August 2024.
96. Taking into account (i) that the termination of the employment relationship took place on
20 August 2024, (ii) that the Player worked almost the entire month, and (iii) the standard
practice of the Football Tribunal, the Chamber decided to award the full salary of August
2024 as outstanding remuneration, amounting to USD 27,272 net, with 5% p.a. on the
outstanding amounts as from the date of termination, i.e. 20 August 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-15779
b.2.3) Match bonuses
97. Regarding the match bonuses, the DRC noted that the Club alleged that it paid the match
bonuses for the draws on 10 April and 10 May 2024. In this regard, the Chamber also noted
that the Club provided untranslated evidence to support its allegations.
98. In this regard, the Chamber referred once again to art. 13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules
according to which all the evidence submitted by a party must be translated into English,
Spanish or French and decided to disregard the evidence provided by the Club in this
regard.
99. Having established the above, the Chamber noted that according to the Player, he was
entitled to receive the match bonus amounting to USD 2,000, which he argues that became
due on 1 August 2024. In this sense, the Chamber observed that, while the Club
acknowledged the Player’s entitlement, it did not mention anything about its due date.
100. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that according to clause 3.3.1 of the Employment
Contract, bonuses were payable every three months, although there was no specific due
date for the payment.
101. Consequently, based on the standard practice of the Football Tribunal, the Chamber
decided to award the Player USD 2,000 net plus 5% interest p.a., as from the date of
termination, i.e., 20 August 2024.
b.3) Compensation
102. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent 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, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
103. 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 a compensation clause was included in the Employment Contract at the
basis of the matter at stake.
104. The Chamber recalled that clause 9.7.6 of the Employment Contract provided:
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-15779
“9.7.6 The Parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that, in accordance Art. 17 of FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the event the [the Player]terminates the
contract without just cause, or [the Club] terminates the contract with just cause due to a breach
of contract of [the Player],[the Player] will be liable to compensate [the Club] with the amount
of 250000 USD as liquidated damages. In the above case, [the Club] should give the notice to
[the Player]10 days before to correct [the Player]'s breach and ask [the Player]to compensate the
breach. If [the Player] fails to correct, [the Club] will have the right to terminate the contract
immediately and ask [the Player] for the compensation according to this article.” (Emphasis
added).
105. From the analysis of the above, the Chamber observed that the abovementioned clause
only established two scenarios: (i) the Club terminates the Employment Contract with just
cause due to a breach of contract of the Player; and (ii) the Player terminates the
Employment Contract without just cause.
106. On account of the above, since neither of the scenarios apply to when the Player terminates
the Employment Contract with just cause, the DRC concluded that said clause should not
be considered for the calculation of the compensation due to the Player for the breach
committed by the Club.
107. 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. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
108. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Taking into account the above,
the Chamber observed that the Claimant requested USD 418,765.17 as compensation for
breach of contract based on the remaining salaries of the Employment Contract and CNY
60,800 for the residual value for the monthly accommodation totalling CNY 3,000.
109. In this sense, the Chamber first recalled that the Employment Contract was valid as from 1
February 2024 until 31 December 2025.
110. In this regard, the Chamber noted that according to the Employment Contract, the salary
of the Player during 2024 was USD 27,272 net, while during 2025 was USD 25,000 net.
111. Taking into account the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the request of the
Player amounting to USD 418,765.17 net included:
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-15779
-
The remaining salaries from September to December 2024, as well as the proportionate
salary for 11 days of August 2024, equal to USD 9,677.17, as the Player requested USD
17,594.83 as outstanding remuneration (4 times USD 27,272 = USD 109,088 plus USD
9,677.17 = USD 118,765.17).
-
Twelve monthly salaries for 2025 amounting to USD 25,000 net each (12 times USD
25,000)
112. The Chamber also recalled that the monthly salary of August 2024 amounting to USD
27,272 net was already awarded as outstanding, therefore it concluded that the amount to
be considered as compensation for the Player should be USD 409,088 net (4 times USD
27,272 plus 12 times USD 25,000).
113. Therefore, the Chamber considered that – in principle-, the Player should be entitled to
receive USD 409,088 net as compensation for breach of Contract.
114. Then, the Chamber moved to the analysis of the Player’s request for the residual value for
the monthly accommodation totalling CNY 60,800.
115. On this note, the Chamber was observant that clause 4.3 of the Employment Contract
stipulated that (quoted verbatim):
“4.3 During the contract period, [the Club] shall provide one dormitory for [the Player] in the
training base. If [the Player] needs to rent an apartment, [the Club] shall pay [the Player] a
monthly housing subsidy of RMB 3000 according to the period of this contract. The housing
subsidy shall be paid by [the Club] to [the Player] in two installments each year. The first payment
of the housing subsidy shall be paid within three working days after the effective date of this
contract, and the second payment shall be paid within three working days after the end of the
summer transfer window of the current season. If this contract is terminated prematurely, [the
Player] shall refund [the Club] the housing subsidy according to the termination time of the
contract. The payment of rental agency fee, water, electricity, property management fee, internet
and building maintenance fee should be borne by [the Player]. During the contract period. [the
Club] is responsible for [the Player’s] transportation between apartment and training base.”
116. In this sense, the Chamber noted that the Player did not provide any evidence on file of
having rented an apartment nor any communication with the Club in this regard.
117. Therefore, although in principle, the Player would be entitled to receive said housing
allowance, the Chamber considered that the Player had the burden of proving that he
rented an apartment and failed to do so.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-15779
118. In this regard, the Chamber wished to recall once again 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.
119. As a consequence, the DRC decided to reject this claim of the Player.
120. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 409,088 net serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
121. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.
122. Indeed, the Player found employment with Sumgait FC. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to USD 36,000 net distributed in 9
instalments from 1 September 2024 to 30 June 2025. Therefore, the Chamber concluded
that the Claimant mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 36,000 net, that is, 9
times USD 4,000 during 9 months of the overlapping period. Therefore, the mitigated
compensation amounts to USD 373,088 net.
123. 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 was of the opinion that while
the Player did not terminate the Employment Contract exclusively based on overdue
payables, by including the non-payment in the termination letter, the Chamber founded
clear that the termination was, among other reasons, due to overdue payables and
therefore decided that the Claimant shall receive additional compensation.
124. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Player’s salary during 2024, at the time of
the termination, was USD 27,272 net and stressed that, in principle, the Player was entitled
to additional compensation of USD 81,816 net, i.e. three times his monthly remuneration.
125. However, the Chamber highlighted that per art. 17 of the Regulations, the total amount of
compensation awarded (including additional compensation) cannot exceed the residual
value of the original contract. Hence, in casu, the members of the Chamber decided to limit
the additional compensation to USD 36,000 net.
126. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-15779
USD 409,088 net to the Claimant (i.e., USD 409,088 net minus USD 36,000 net plus USD
36,000 net), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
127. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest
on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 20 August 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
128. 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.
129. 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.
130. 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.
131. 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.
132. 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
133. 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,
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-15779
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
134. 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.
135. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-15779
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Milos Milovic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Qingdao Hainiu FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
-
USD 56,544 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 August
2024 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 409,088 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 20 August 2024 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.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-15779
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 29