Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5144
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 October 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Luis Fernandez Teijeiro
COMPOSITION:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Laurel Vaurasi (Fiji), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Luis Fernandez Teijeiro, Spain
Represented by Luis Cassiano Neves; Matilde Costa Dias; GabrielEguinoa
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
KhorFakkan, United Arab Emirates
Represented by Abdulla Ali Al Junaibi; Jincy Jaime Stephen Alexander
INTERVENING PARTY:
Wisla Krakow, Poland
Represented by Tomasz Wolicki
Page 2
REF FPSD-5144
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 24 July 2021, the Spanish player Luis Fernandez Teijeiro (hereinafter: the player) and the Emirati
club KhorFakkan (hereinafter: the club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract), valid as from 24 July 2021 until 30 June 2022.
2.
Pursuant to clause 3 of the contract, the player was entitled to the total amount of USD 800,000
net as remuneration, payable as follows:
(i)
USD 162,000 net as contract advance, to be paid after the receiving the ITC; and
(ii)
USD 638,000 net to be divided in 11 equal and subsequent instalments of USD 58,000 each, paid
from 1 August 2021 until 30 June 2022.
3.
Additionally, as per the contract the club also undertook to provide to the player the following:
(iii) a health insurance,
(iv) two business flight tickets to Mr. Teijeiro and his wife,
(v)
a resident visa for both the Player and his wife,
(vi) a furnished apartment, and
(vii) a suitable car with its respective insurance.
4.
The player indicated that upon conclusion of the contract he started to render his services to the
club by attending all scheduled training sessions, including the pre-season training camp, as well
as participating in two official matches against Al-Wahda FC and Al-Nassr, respectively on 10
September 2021 and 16 September 2021.
5.
Notwithstanding the above, without any reasonable justification or any previous notice, the club
proceeded with the cancellation of the player’s registration, according to the player “in order to
open up a spot in the 4-foreign players quota established by the United Arab Emirates Football
Association (UAE FA).
6.
The player further indicated that the club was no longer interested in maintaining an employment
relationship with him in order to allegedly register its new signings.
7.
Furthermore, the player indicated that due to the fact that his deregistration occurred “only a few
days before the closure of the Summer Transfer Window, the latter was prevented from participating in
any form of organized professional football for a total 3 (three) months, i.e., from the closing of the
2021/2022 Summer Transfer Window on 4 October 2021 until the opening of the 2011/2022 Winter
Transfer Window, on 5 January 2022.”
8.
The player mentioned that he continued to train with the club as the club verbally assured him
that “(i) it would comply fully with its financial obligations under the Employment Agreement entered
Page 3
REF FPSD-5144
into on 24 July 2021, and that (ii) it would re-register the player with the UAE FA at the first available
opportunity, i.e., upon the opening of the Winter Transfer Window on 5 January 2022.”
9.
According to the player, in and around mid-end November 2021 the club allegedly started
imposing certain restrictions on the training sessions of the player, in this regard the player
mentioned that “despite initiating the trainings with the club’s main squad, the player would be put
aside in certain exercises, only training with a few side-lined (and de-registered) players, such as Mr.
Borja Valle.”
10. On 17 December 2021 the agent of the player, Mr. Goran Maric, travelled to Khorfakkan in order
to meet with the CEO of the club, Mr. Ehab Salem, “in an attempt to solve the problem regarding the
separate trainings and in order to ensure that the player would be indeed re-registered by the opening
of the winter transfer window.”
11. Apparently in the said meeting the CEO of the club stated that the club was no longer interested
in maintaining its employment relationship with the player and offered a proposal for an early
termination of the contract which was rejected by the player.
12. The player stated that due to his rejection of the proposal from 20 December 2021, the club
completely excluded him from the regular training sessions with his teammates, “by forcing the
player to train by himself a lot of times after the sunset in poor circumstances, without any professional
from the Club, and separately from the Club’s first team, as can be confirmed by the recordings made
by the Player during such individual training sessions.”
13. On 21 December 2021, the player sent a notice to the club and requested the following:
a)
The Club to reinstate the Player with the First Football Team with immediate effects.
b)
The Club to re-register the Player with the First Football Team of the Club, so that the Player is eligible to
play as soon as the winter registration period starts.
14. In reply to the player’s letter, on 23 December 2021 the club sent an email to the player, in terms
of which the club indicted that it “respects the player’s employment contract and all its provisions and
confirmed that he will receive all his financial dues on time unless breach of contract has occurred.” The
club further made reference to the player’s training and mentioned that “his private training is
aimed at improving his physical fitness and to prepare him better in accordance with coach’s
recommendations. Finally, and about your registration or not, this matters up to the coach according
to his technical vision and the team’s needs and in light of your training program mentioned above.”
15. On 24 December 2021, the player sent a further correspondence to the club indicating that his
registration as a player was cancelled without a justifiable reason and again requesting:
a)
The Club to reinstate the Player with the First Football Team with immediate effects.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5144
b)
The Club to re-register the Player with the First Football Team of the Club, so that the Player is eligible to
play as soon as the winter registration period starts.
16. On 29 December 2021, the player sent a final notification indicating that “the Player grants the Club
a final deadline until 5 January 2022 in which to complete the Player’s registration with the UAE FA, and
to provide evidence of such registration to the Player. Failure to comply with this request will entitle the
Player to immediately terminate his Employment Contract for just cause, without any further
notification.”
17. The aforesaid letter also referred to the following:
“As you are aware, this situation first eventuated in October, days before the closure of the Summer
Transfer Window of 2021. Without any previous notice, Khorfakan FC (hereinafter the Club) decided to
hire an additional foreign player, thus leaving the Player without a position in the 4-foreign players
allotment allowed by the UAE FA. At the time, with virtually all registration windows closed and with only
November and December until the new registration window, the Player had little choice but to accept
the facts as they were presented by the Club. At the time, the Club and the Player struck an agreement
vis-à-vis the Player’s professional future, which was based on the following two premises:
•
“the Club would comply fully with its financial obligations under the Employment Agreement entered
into on 24 July 2021; AND
•
the Club would register the Player with the UAE FA at the first available opportunity, i.e., upon the
opening of the Winter Transfer Window on 1 January 2022.”
18. On 6 January 2022, the player terminated the contract with the club.
19. On 11 January 2022, the player signed a new employment contract with the club, Wisla Krakow
valid from 11 January 2022 until the 30 June 2022, entitling the player to the following
remuneration:
“By virtue of the contract the player is entitled to receive in the 2021/2022 season, starting from January
2022 to June 2022, a basic remuneration in the amount of 10,800 EUR (say: ten thousand eight hundred
euro) + VAT, if due, monthly, in total 64,800 EUR (say: sixty four thousand eight hundred euro) + VAT, if
due.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
20. On 15 February 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5144
a.
Position of the player
21. According to the player, the club was continuously violating his fundamental rights, and, more
specifically, his “right to play”.
22. The player mentioned that at the time the club deregistered him all transfer windows around the
world were closed, which prevented him from searching for a new club in a timely manner which
could enable him to immediately participate in any official competitions, additionally that the club
verbally informed him that he would be re-registered upon the opening of the winter transfer
window.
23. The player argued that as from December 2021, the club:
(i)
infringed the Claimant’s fundamental right to take part in collective training sessions, by forcing the
latter to train by himself for a long period of time without any justification for doing so, but also
(ii)
infringed the Player’s fundamental right to a timely payment of his remuneration by failing to pay the
Player’s salary of December 2021 in a timely manner, and, more critically,
(iii) refused itself from ensuring that the Player would indeed be registered with the UAE FA upon the opening
of the Winter Transfer Window
24. According to the player it remained evident that the club did not intend to cure the
abovementioned violations until the end of the parties’ employment relationship, thus leaving him
no other option than to terminate the employment agreement with just cause.
25. The requests for relief of the player, were the following:
(a)
order the club to the payment of the total sum of USD 355,307.10, which corresponds to the outstanding
salaries agreed upon the contract, plus the residual value (Additional Compensation) of the Employment
Agreement signed between the Parties as compensation due under Article 17 FIFA RSTP; or,
in the alternative;
(b)
order the club to the payment of the total sum of USD 281,787.60 (Two Hundred and Eighty-One
Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Seven United States Dollars and Sixty Cents), which corresponds
on the one hand, to the outstanding salaries agreed upon the contract, plus the Mitigated Compensation
due under Article 17 FIFA RSTP;
(c)
order the club to pay 5% interest p.a. calculated over each outstanding amount, as of the day after each
amount became due until the date of effective payment;
(d)
impose the appropriate sporting sanctions to the club.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5144
b.
Position of the club and counterclaim
26. According to the club, the facts in the player’s claim is a false reconstruction of the facts which
occurred between the parties.
27. In this regard the club confirmed that on 24 July 2021, the parties concluded an employment
contract.
28. The club indicated that during the first week of August 2021, the player raised complaints regarding
a pain in his back, whereafter the following occurred:
-
The player was immediately sent for consultation to a doctor at a hospital in Dubai
On 7 August 2021, the Player underwent an MRI scan at the hospital and the doctor diagnosed the Player
with “Other intervertebral disc degeneration” in his lumbar region. Moreover, with regard to the history
of illness, the doctor remarked as follows: In light of the above, the said doctor diagnosed with “multilevel
lumbar disc disease” and therefore advised to take rest of 2 months in the following manner.
29. In this context the club indicated that as a result of his injury and as recommended by the doctor,
the player trained individually to make a recovery and therefore was not available for the matches
that took place on 20 August 21 against Al-Ain FC and 25 August 2021 against Al-Wasl.
30. Moreover, on 22 August 2021, the player allegedly developed a fungal infection in his foot ruling
him out of action for around 10 days.
31. The club mentions that after the player recovered from his injuries and being able to train again,
he was reintegrated with the first team and as such, “the player was part of the team during the
matches against Al-Wadha FC on 10 September 2021 and Al Nasr on 16 September 2021.”
32. Following the aforesaid matches the club indicates that the player “had to undergo rehabilitation for
the recover from his back and foot injuries which were seriously affecting the performance of the player,
hence the parties mutually agreed that the Player will be de-registered as a temporary measure until
the second registration period by which time the Player would have gone proper rehabilitation and be
declared fully fit to play.”
33. The club further confirmed that notwithstanding the de-registration of the player, the club
promised the player that he would be paid his full remuneration as per the terms of the contract
and the player would be training as usual with the first team which was accepted by the player.
Moreover, “the course of action agreed between the parties was that the Club would re-register the
Player during the second registration period by which time the Player would have fully recovered from
his injuries - in the meantime the Club would be paying his full salaries.
34. According to the club “during the months from 18 September 2021 until 20 December (i.e., more than
3 months), the Club complied with the terms of the agreement reached with the Player by paying his full
Page 7
REF FPSD-5144
remuneration while the Player was recovering from his injuries and training as usual along with the first
team of the Club and the Player never raised any issue whatsoever.”
35. On 20 December 2021, “after receiving clearance from the medical department of the Club, and after
the discussion with the coaching staff, it was decided that the Player would undergo an individual
training program under the supervision of the fitness coach, Mr. Juliano Vallim for a period of 2 weeks
for the Player to improve his fitness and for him to recover to full playing capacity.”
36. The club has indicated “that in the last of the notifications served by the player before the unilateral
termination of the contract, the player requested to be registered by 5 January 2022.Here, it is pertinent
to note that the second registration period opened only on 5 January 2022 and was open until 1 February
2022. Moreover, 1 January 2022 (Saturday) and 2 January 2022 (Sunday), were both holidays in UAE and
for the Club. In essence, the Club was unreasonably granted only 1 day, i.e., 5 January 2022 to reregister
the Player while there were more than 26 days of the registration period left and the first game of the
Club was only on 11 January 2022. In other words, the Player abruptly rushed to terminate his
Employment Contract in 15 days however, he did not object to the deregistration for 3 entire months.”
c.
Position of the player to counterclaim
37. In reply to the counterclaim, the player inter alia, stipulated the following:
-
“The Player utterly rejects all the Club’s unfounded contentions with regards to his -alleged- injuries,
considering that such allegations are not provided of any logic and shall thus be completely disregarded
by FIFA, as they only represent a desperate attempt from the Club of justifying its blatant breaches and
violations of the Player’s fundamental rights.
-
In this regard, it shall be highlighted that even if the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would -ad
argumentandum, and only for the purposes of demonstrating the mischievous and illogical arguments
presented by the Club in its Counterclaim-, confirm that he indeed suffered any of the -alleged- injuries
mentioned in the Statement of Claim, it remains evident that such injuries could never justify the Club’s
unilateral decision of de-registering Mr. Teijeiro only a few days before the closing of the Summer
Transfer Window.
-
injuries could not justify the Player’s de-registration, considering that the latter participated in two
official matches in representation of the Club on 10 and 16 September 2021, i.e., after the dates of the
alleged diagnosis of his alleged injuries
-
Subsequently, it shall be noted that in its Counterclaim the Club makes multiple references to a fictional
agreement, in which the Player would have agreed to his de-registration. However, Khorfakkan fails to
provide any reliable evidence to support such contentions.
-
Firstly, the Club attempts to demonstrate the -imaginary- mutual agreement with regards to the Player’s
de-registration by attaching an internal memo dated 18 September 2021, of which the Player was never
Page 8
REF FPSD-5144
informed of, in which the Club’s First Team Director, Mr. Ismail Al Hosani informs the Club’s First Team
Supervisor, Mr. Ali Al Hosani, that “I have met with the Player Luis Fernandez (Spanish national), on 18th
September 2022, and informed him of the technical staff decision of deregistering him in the First Team’s
List and replacing him with a player named Paulo Vitor (Brazilian national)” (emphasis added)
-
In this regard, as can be seen from the content of the abovementioned internal memo, and contrary to
what it is stated by the Club in its Counterclaim, Mr. Teijeiro did not agree to his de-registration, but
instead, was only informed of the Club’s technical staff unilateral decision after the Club had already
proceeded with such de-registration. “
38. In conclusion the player rejected the counterclaim of the club and reiterated its position as per his
claim.
d.
Position of the Intervening Party
39. The club Wisla Krakow (hereinafter: Wisla) held that the player had just cause to terminate the
contract with the club therefore, neither the player nor Wisla is liable to the club for a
compensation for breaching the contract. Consequently, the club’s requests in this respect shall
be considered unjustified and therefore rejected.
40. Moreover, Wisla, inter alia stipulated the following:
“Referring to KhorFakkan FC's request to FIFA Football Tribunal to impose sanctions on the Club, it should
be pointed out that pursuant to art. 17 sec. 4 of FIFA RSTP, such sanctions may be imposed only on a
club which is found to have induced a breach of contract concluded between a professional player and
his current club. In accordance with the Commentary (page 182), inducement to a breach of contract
shall be regarded as accessory to the actual breach. Furthermore, according to the Commentary the
DRC's jurisprudence is consistent in that DRC has a certain margin of discretion in deciding whether or
not to impose sporting sanctions (page 178).
Only as a precaution, the Club submits that it had no influence on the Player's decision to terminate the
Contract and that the Contract was terminated by the Player only as a result of KhorFakkan FC's
breaches. The decision to enter into an employment contract was made by the Club and the Player only
after the effective termination of the Contract. Consequently, the Club cannot be considered as an
inducing club.
As the Player has unilaterally terminated the Contract with just cause and thereby has not breached the
Contract, the Club cannot be regarded as an inducing club. Thus, KhorFakkan FC's request to FIFA
Football Tribunal to impose sanctions on the Club shall be considered unjustified and consequently
rejected.”
41. In conclusion Wisla requested that the counterclaim of the club be rejected in its entirety.
Page 9
REF FPSD-5144
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
42. 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 15 February 2022 and submitted for decision on 13
October 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 2022 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.
43. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 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 Spanish player and an Emirati club.
44. 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 (July 2022 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 15 February 2022, the August 2021 edition in force on the date of
claim edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
45. 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
46. 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 abovementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5144
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
47. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter
48. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the parties concluded an employment contract valid as from
24 July 2021 until 30 June 2022.
49. Thereafter, the Chamber observed that the player lodged a claim before FIFA the player
deregistered him.
50. On the other hand, the Chamber took note of the position of the club, which argued that,
fundamentally, the parties agreed that the player would be de-registered on a temporary basis.
51. Therefore, the Chamber took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute as to whether a
mutual agreement relating to the de-registration of the player was concluded between them and
subsequently if the player had just cause to terminate the contract.
52. The Chamber then noted that the player maintained that he had just cause to terminate the
contract on 6 January 2022, in light of the fact that the club (i) prevented him from taking part in
collective training sessions with his teammated, by forcing the him to train by himself for a long period
of time without any justification; (ii) failed to pay his salary of December 2021 in a timely manner, and
(iii) failed to ensure that the player is registered with the UAE Football Association upon the opening of
the Winter Transfer Window
53. The Chamber observed that the club, on the other hand, rejected the player’s claim and lodged a
counterclaim for breach of contract alleging that the player abruptly terminated the contract,
specifically in the context that he did not object to his deregistration for an entire three months.
54. The DRC acknowledged that the player rejected the club’s counterclaim and that Wisla endorsed
the player’s position by rejecting the counterclaim as well.
55. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine as to whether the player
had terminated the contract on 6 January 2022 with or without just cause and to decide on the
consequences thereof.
56. The Chamber addressed the diverging position regarding the de-registration of the player and
remarked that on analysis of the documentation and information on file, no written document
relating to the terms of the de-registration of the player was concluded between the parties. In this
regard, the DRC remarked that although an official agreement was not concluded, based on the
submission of the parties it seems that an understanding existed between them that at least the
player would be re-registered at the beginning of the winter transfer window of the UAE.
57. In this context, the DRC observed that as per TMS, the registration period in the UAE started on 5
January 2022 and would remain open until 1 February 2022.
Page 11
REF FPSD-5144
58. The Chamber remarked that at the date the player terminated the contract i.e., 6 January 2022,
the latter issued multiple notifications to the club to be registered, specifically by 5 January 2022,
moreover at the said date the relevant transfer window was indeed open, however the club failed
to attend to the registration of the player.
59. Taking all of the above into account, the members of the Chamber considered it important to point
out, as has been previously sustained by the DRC, 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. Therefore, the Chamber established that the “de-registration” of a player could in principle
constitute a breach of contract since it de facto prevents a player from being eligible to play for his
club.
61. Consequently the DRC considered that the club had for a significant period of time been breach of
its contractual obligations towards the player and moreover that the player legitimately lost
confidence that he would still be registered by the club, it therefore decided that the player had
just cause to terminate the employment contract on 6 January 2022 and that, as a result, the club
is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact.
62. As a result of the above, the DRC furthermore concluded that the counterclaim of the club is
rejected.
ii. Consequences
63. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of
the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.
64. 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. USD 7,307.10
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 15 February 2022 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-5144
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 nonexhaustive 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 USD 348,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract – January until June 2022) serves as
the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
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. Indeed, the player found employment with the Polish club, Wisla Krakow. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to EUR 10,800 per month from 11 January
until 30 June 2022. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in
the total amount of EUR 64,800 (approximately USD 63,093.82).
72. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the
case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 284,906.18 to the
player (i.e. USD 348,000 minus USD 63,093.82), which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
73. 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 15 February 2022 until the date of effective payment.
Page 13
REF FPSD-5144
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the club must pay the full amount due
(including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing
which, at the request of the player, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods
shall become immediately effective on the club in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the
Regulations.
77. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account provided
by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
78. 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
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any
of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5144
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Luis Fernandez Teijeiro, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, KhorFakkan is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, KhorFakkan, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent,
the following amount(s):
-
USD 7,307.10 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 February 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
-
USD 284,906.18 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 15 February 2022 until the date of effective payment
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are 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
Page 15
REF FPSD-5144
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).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 16