Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-00869/iml
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 October 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Wilde Gomes da Silva
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Joseph Antoine Bell (Cameroon), member
Stéphane Burchkalter (France), member
CLAIMANT:
Wilde Gomes da Silva, Brazil
Represented by Messrs Luca Tettamanti and Alberto Roige Godia
RESPONDENT:
AC Sparta Prague z.s., Czech Republic
Represented by Mr Martin Mrovec
Page 2 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 15 December 2018, the Brazilian player, Mr Wilde Gomes da Silva (hereinafter: the
player or Claimant) and the Czech club, AC Sparta Prague z.s. (hereinafter: the club or
Respondent) signed a first “Contract for Sport Performance” (hereinafter: the first
contract) valid as from 1 January 2019 until 30 May 2020.
2.
According to the first contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant, inter
alia, a monthly salary of EUR 5,000, payable on the 25th day of each month, as well as
the following bonuses:
EUR 2,500 for winning the league during the season 2018/2019;
EUR 5,000 for winning the league during the season 2019/2020;
EUR 1,000 for winning the cup during the season 2019/2020.
3.
On 15 July 2019, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a second “Contract for Sport
Performance” (hereinafter: the second contract) valid as from 1 August 2019 until
30 May 2021.
4.
According to the second contract, the Claimant was entitled to, inter alia, “salary from
01.08.2019 till 30.05.2020 EUR 5000/monthly […] in total: 50.000 Euros” as follows:
EUR 10,000 by 30 August 2019;
EUR 10,000 by 30 September 2019;
8 instalments of EUR 3,000 for the period of October 2019 until May 2020,
payable on the 25th day of each month;
EUR 6,000 by 25 June 2020.
5.
In addition, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the following bonuses
pursuant to the second contract:
EUR 5,000 for winning the league during the season 2019/2020;
EUR 1,000 for winning the cup during the season 2019/2020;
EUR 2,500 for qualifying from the Main Round to the Elite Round of the UEFA
Champions League;
EUR 5,000 for qualifying from the Elite Round to the Final Four of the UEFA
Champions League.
6.
What is more, the second contract provided that “salaries and bonuses for second
season 2020/2021 will be all the same as in first season”.
7.
The second contract further stipulated that “till 31.12.2019 player has duty to resolve
his status of EU citizenship, in case of not than club will not continue with him for
another season”.
Page 3 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
8.
Finally, the second contract set out the “duties of the player”, among which the player
has “to carry the club sports activity of sports training and participation in the
championship and friendly matches and other events for which will be nominated
(hereinafter referred to as “sports activity”)”.
9.
On 10 March 2020, the “players’ representatives and the club management concluded
the following agreement:
[…]
“The club […] and its players hereby agree that, with regard to the ongoing global
pandemic diseases SARS-CoV-2 (which made impossible to train and also led to
cancelation of leagues and cups the club has been participating), players will not
require the payment of monthly rewards and bonuses for the period from 15 March
2020 to the end of the 2019/2020 season.
This agreement is made because lack of club income and deteriorating economic
situation of the club”.
10. The above-mentioned document (hereinafter: the agreement) was signed by the two
team’s captains, Mr Ondrej Vahala and Mr Tomas Drahovsky, as well as managers of the
Respondent.
11. On 12 March 2020, the Czech FA suspended its competitions for thirty days due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
12. On 27 April 2020, the Claimant granted the Respondent 15 days to pay him the amount
of EUR 16,350 which was still outstanding to him, corresponding to the following:
EUR 850 out of the EUR 2,500 for winning the 2018-2019 League;
EUR 12,000 corresponding to the monthly salaries of February, March and
April 2020;
EUR 1,000 for winning the cup “in December 2019”;
EUR 2,500 for Champions League qualification.
13. On 6 May 2020, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s default letter, firstly
acknowledging the signing of the second contract and secondly, offering to pay the
following amounts to the Claimant:
“EUR 850 as additional payment from bonus in winning the league during
the season 2018/2019;
EUR 3 500 as a bonus for participating in winning of the cup title in
December 2019 and for the qualification to the Elite Round of the UEFA
Futsal Champions League;
Monthly salaries of January, February and ½ of March 2020 for a total of
EUR 7,500.”
Page 4 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
14. However, in said letter, the Respondent “denied paying monthly salaries for the second
half of March 2020 and following months because [the player] left Czech Republic due
to current worldwide pandemia”. In continuation, the Respondent referred to the duties
of the Claimant as stipulated in the second contract and held that the Claimant “is not
entitled to claim any reward for the months he is absent from sport activities for my
client. As soon as [the player] returns to Czech Republic and starts participating on sport
activities due to the second contract, he will be paid his monthly reward according to
the mentioned contract”.
15. On 25 May 2020, the Claimant terminated the contract in writing. In his termination
letter, the Claimant firstly argued that he had to leave the country “at his own costs”. In
continuation, the Claimant referred to the Respondent’s acknowledgement that
EUR 11,850 was outstanding in his favour, but maintained that this amount was
outstanding since before the pandemic of COVID-19. Finally, the Claimant highlighted
that the Respondent’s denial to pay any amount after 15 March 2020 “for allegedly not
complying with the 2nd contract is ill-grounded and firmly rejected”.
16. On 18 June 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA.
17. In his claim, the Claimant firstly stated that the Respondent won the league on 3 June
2019.
18. In continuation, the Claimant maintained that on 25 June 2019, he obtained the
Portuguese citizenship.
19. With regards to his salary for the 2020/2021 season, the Claimant elaborated that “the
Club specified that salaries and bonuses for second season 2020/2021 will be all the
same as in first season”.
20. The Claimant then highlighted that the Respondent participated in the UEFA futsal
Champions League for the 2019/2020 season.
21. According to the Claimant, the Respondent won the national cup on 10 December
2019.
22. What is more, the Claimant held that he was informed by the Respondent via WhatsApp
on 13 March 2020 that, due to COVID-19, the season was over. Furthermore, according
to the Claimant, he was “forced” out of his apartment, and had to pay for his own flight
out of the country.
23. In continuation, the Claimant again referred to the exchange of WhatsApp messages
between him and the Respondent, which can be summarized as follows:
Page 5 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
On 6 April 2020, the Claimant asked the Respondent about “the money
issue”;
On 7 April 2020, the Respondent replied that the contract remained valid for
another year, but that it was “impossible to pay EUR 5,000 per month”. With
regards to outstanding remuneration, the Respondent acknowledged that it
owed the Claimant “2x EUR 3,000” until 15 March 2020;
On 8 April 2020, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent still owed him
EUR 4,300 for bonuses, as well as 3 monthly salaries;
On that same day, the Respondent replied that it will pay “everything” to the
Claimant up until “15.3 including bonuses”. However, as per the Respondent,
as from half of March onwards, the Claimant “was not there” due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, making the payments of these salaries “impossible”.
24. The Claimant then referred to his default letter of 27 April 2020, as well as to the
Respondent’s letter of 6 May 2020, and held that he was “not satisfied” with the
Respondent’s “proposal”. Consequently, the Claimant explained to have terminated the
contract on 25 May 2020.
25. In light of the above, the Claimant first requested outstanding remuneration in the
amount of EUR 16,350.
26. With regard to the outstanding bonus in the amount of EUR 850 for winning the 20182019 League, the Claimant held that he was contractually entitled to EUR 2,500, but
that he had only received EUR 1,650.
27. What is more, the Claimant requested the payment of 5% interest p.a. on the amount
of EUR 16,350, as follows:
on EUR 850 as of 25 June 2019;
on EUR 2,500 as of 25 October 2019;
on EUR 1,000 as of 25 December 2019;
on EUR 3,000 as of 25 January 2020;
on EUR 3,000 as of 25 February 2020;
on EUR 3,000 as of 25 March 2020;
on EUR 3,000 as of 25 April 2020.
28. In addition to the above, the Claimant also requested the payment of compensation in
the amount of EUR 89,265.24, broken down as follows:
EUR 59,000 as the residual value of the second contract;
EUR 30,000 as damages based on the “specificity of sport”.
29. In order to substantiate this request, the Claimant held that the second contract was
valid until “30 June 2021”. Thus, as per the Claimant, “the residual value of the Second
Page 6 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
Contract in this case is equal to EUR 59,000 (EUR 3,000 of May 2020, EUR 6,000 of June
2020 plus EUR 50,000 for the season 2020/2021)”.
30. In continuation, the Claimant requested the reimbursement of EUR 265,24,
corresponding to the flight tickets that he was obliged to pay for himself.
31. Finally, the Claimant requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the club, and
that the Respondent pays for the procedural costs.
32. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent first confirmed that two contracts had been
signed with the Claimant and that the Respondent was engaged in the Claimant’s rental
agreement until 31 July 2020.
33. However, the Respondent argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Claimant
had chosen to leave the country “at his own discretion”.
34. The Respondent added that by leaving the country on his own, the Claimant had
breached the employment contract by doing so, given that he did not have the club’s
authorization.
35. With regard to the default notice sent by the Claimant, the Respondent held that it
received it more than 40 days after the Claimant left the club without authorisation and
while he had been absent from practice. In this context, the Respondent considered that
the Claimant should have sent his default notice while he was still at the club and not
after his departure.
36. In continuation, the Respondent argued that it had outstanding amounts due to the
Claimant but only until he left, in the amount of EUR 11,850, corresponding to the
monthly salaries of January, February and half of March 2020. In this regard, the
Respondent claimed that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was in delay of payments
for all its players.
37. Against such background, the Respondent held that “In view of FIFA's previous decision,
the non-payment of two monthly salaries with the combination of the ongoing global
pandemic is not such a breach of contract that would establish just cause to unilaterally
terminate contract by the player. There is also a need to highlight the fact that the player
was the first of the contractual parties who gravely breached the contract which entitled
the club to end the contract with just cause.”
38. In view of the above, the Respondent considered that no compensation should be
awarded to the Claimant on the basis that two outstanding salaries during a global
pandemic were not sufficient, especially whilst taking into account that the Claimant left
the country.
Page 7 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
39. The Respondent also requested that the costs of the proceedings be at the expense of
the Claimant.
40. Finally, upon request of FIFA, the Claimant confirmed that he concluded an employment
contract with the Italian club, ASD Com Medio Basento, valid as from 7 January 2020
until 30 June 2021. According to said employment contract, the player is entitled to a
total remuneration of EUR 32,000.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as: the DRC or
the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this
respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was first submitted to FIFA on
18 June 2020. Consequently, the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the
Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with
art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2020
edition), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player
and a Czech club.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as
to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (October 2020 edition) and
considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 June 2020, the June
2020 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
4.
With the above having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the
matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the
documents contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasized that in the
following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence
which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
In this respect, the Chamber firstly acknowledged that it was undisputed that the
Claimant and the Respondent had signed a first employment contract valid as from
1 January 2019 until 30 May 2020, and a second employment contract valid as from
1 August 2019 until 30 May 2021. In continuation, the Chamber noted that it was also
undisputed that the Claimant was entitled, inter alia, to a remuneration as set out at
points I./2., 4. and 5. above.
Page 8 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
6.
What is more, the Chamber further noted that the Claimant terminated the contract on
25 May 2020.
7.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the main issue to be analysed in
the present case is whether the contract was unilaterally and prematurely terminated
with or without just cause by the Claimant on 25 May 2020. Subsequently, the Chamber
shall establish the financial and/or sporting consequences to be borne by the party found
to be in breach of contract.
8.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct
which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only
when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a
continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be
terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken,
such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature
termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
9.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the basic
principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the
respective burden of proof.
10. With the aforementioned in mind, the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant deemed
to have terminated the contract with just cause on 25 May 2020.
11. In this regard, the Chamber noted, on the one hand, that the Claimant claimed that the
Respondent won the league on 3 June 2019 and the national cup on 10 December
2019, participated in the UEFA futsal Champions League for the 2019/2020 season and
promised that “salaries and bonuses for second season 2020/2021 will be all the same
as in first season”.
12. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the Claimant argued that he was informed by
the Respondent via WhatsApp on 13 March 2020 that, due to COVID-19, the season
was over and he was “forced” out of his apartment and had to pay for his own flight
out of the country.
13. In continuation, the Chamber referred to the Claimant’s position based on WhatsApp
messages between 6 April and 8 April 2020, whereby the Respondent acknowledged
that the contract was valid for an additional year and that outstanding remuneration
was due to the Claimant up until 15 March 2020.
14. In addition, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant had put the Respondent in default
to pay the amount of EUR 16,350 within 15 days.
Page 9 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
15. The Chamber noted that the Respondent, on the other hand, rejected the claim put
forward by the Claimant and argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Claimant
had left the country “at his own discretion”, thereby breaching the employment
contract.
16. What is more, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent considered that it received
the Claimant’s default notice more than 40 days after the Claimant left the club without
authorisation and while he had been absent from practice. In this context, the
Respondent was of the opinion that the outstanding amounts due to the Claimant, in
the amount of EUR 11,850, should only cover the period until which he left the country,
i.e. January until mid-March 2020. The Chamber further took note of the Respondent’s
explanation that it was in delay of payments for all its players due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
17. The members of the Chamber underlined that in light of the above, the Respondent
considered that no compensation should be awarded to the Claimant on the basis that
two outstanding salaries during a global pandemic were not sufficient, especially whilst
taking into account that the Claimant left the country.
18. Having said that, the Chamber wished to refer to the fact that, in light of the worldwide
COVID-19 outbreak, FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which
aim at providing appropriate guidance and recommendations to member associations
and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by
COVID-19 and ensure that any response is harmonised in the common interest.
Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an additional document, referred to as FIFA
COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarification about the most relevant questions in
connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and identifies
solutions for new regulatory matters.
19. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the aforementioned COVID-19 documents
issued by FIFA - as per the explicit wording of FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of
the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines - are only applicable to “unilateral variations to existing
employment agreements”. Therefore, except where a termination of a contract occurred
following a unilateral variation made as a result of COVID-19 (in which case the validity
of the variation must first be assessed under the guidelines), said guidelines do not apply
to assess unilateral terminations of existing employment agreements. The members of
the Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes that are presented before
the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of a contract, the FIFA
Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber, shall apply.
20. Following these general observations, the members of the Chamber deemed it
important to outline that it remained uncontested that the Claimant had left the country
on 13 March 2020, following which he had put the Respondent in default on 27 April
2020.
Page 10 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
21. Bearing in mind the above considerations, the DRC wished to underline that it also
remained uncontested that the Respondent had not fulfilled its financial obligations set
forth in the employment contract signed between the parties and that it had failed to
pay to the Claimant the salaries for January, February and part of March 2020.
22. In this context, the Chamber wished to refer to the agreement signed on 10 March 2020
between the players’ representatives and the Respondent, whereby “players will not
require the payment of monthly rewards and bonuses for the period from 15 March
2020 to the end of the 2019/2020 season” due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Chamber underlined that the agreement, which was provided by the Respondent, was
not signed by the Claimant and that the Respondent had failed to submit any evidence
corroborating that the agreement had been signed on behalf of the Claimant or any
other player.
23. Subsequently, the Chamber underlined that the Claimant had unilaterally terminated
the contract on 25 May 2020, after he had put the Respondent in default on 27 April
2020 and granted a deadline of 15 days for the Respondent to comply with its financial
obligations. In this respect, reference was made to art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations,
which, inter alia, stipulates that, in the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player
at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just
cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in
writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply
with its financial obligation(s).
24. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, specifically considering that,
when the Claimant terminated the contract, more than two salary payments were due
despite the fact that the Claimant provided the Respondent with 15 days to remedy the
default, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate
the employment relationship on 25 May 2020 based on art. 14bis par. 1 of the
Regulations. Consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for the respective
consequences.
25. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of
the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequence of
such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an
amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding
payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
26. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent must fulfil its
obligations towards the Claimant as per the employment contract up until the date of
termination of the contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt
servanda”.
Page 11 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
27. On this basis, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant
the salaries that were outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. the amount of
EUR 15,000, consisting of the monthly salaries of January, February, March, April and
May 2020.
28. In addition, with regard to the Claimant’s request for the payment of bonuses, the
members of the Chamber took into account the relevant contractual provisions and the
documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition. In this context, the
DRC concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim with pertinent
documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and
therefore decided that the Respondent must pay EUR 1,000 as the bonus for winning
the national cup in 2019 and EUR 2,500 for qualifying for the main round of the UEFA
futsal Champions League in the season 2019/2020.
29. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant’s claim as well as the Chamber’s
longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, it was decided to award the Claimant interest
of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned total amount, i.e. EUR 18,500, as follows:
on EUR 3,000 as from 26 January 2020 until the date of effective payment;
on EUR 3,000 as from 26 February 2020 until the date of effective payment;
on EUR 3,000 as from 26 March 2020 until the date of effective payment.
on EUR 3,000 as from 26 April 2020 until the date of effective payment;
on EUR 3,000 as from 26 May 2020 until the date of effective payment;
on EUR 3,500 as from 25 May 2020 until the date of effective payment.
30. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of
the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless
otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration
for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective
criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player
under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing
contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual
breach falls within the protected period.
31. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent 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
the contract did not contain such a provision.
32. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in
Page 12 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The
Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of
criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation
payable.
33. 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 until its term, i.e. June 2021.
34. Consequently, taking into account the financial terms of the contract, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 56,000, i.e. salary of June 2020 in the amount of
EUR 6,000 and salary for the 2020/2021 season in the amount of EUR 50,000, serve as
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
35. 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 able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC, 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.
36. In this context, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant had signed an employment
contract with the Italian club, ASD Com Medio Basento, valid as from 7 January 2020
until 30 June 2021, by means of which the Claimant is entitled to a total remuneration
in the amount of EUR 32,000.
37. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive the
amount of EUR 24,000 as mitigated compensation for breach of contract without just
cause.
38. Having established the above and taking into account art. 17 par.1 (ii), the DRC recalled
that it had found that the player had unilaterally terminated the contract due to overdue
payables and took note that the player had been able to mitigate his damages partially.
Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to an additional
compensation in the amount of EUR 13,635, corresponding to the equivalent of 3
monthly salaries, i.e. calculated on a pro rata basis (total amount of the contract:
EUR 100,000 / 22 months = EUR 4,545 per month).
39. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay
the total amount of EUR 37,636 to the Claimant, which was considered reasonable and
proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
Page 13 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
40. In addition, taking into account the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant
interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 37,636, as of the date of claim, i.e. 18 June
2020, until the date of effective payment.
41. Subsequently, the DRC analysed the request of the Claimant corresponding to
compensation for moral damages based on the “specificity of sport” in the amount of
EUR 30,000. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that the
request for said compensation presented by the Claimant had no legal or regulatory
basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted that
demonstrated or quantified the damage suffered.
42. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter
stipulating that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. In conclusion, the
Claimant’s claim is partially accepted.
43. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under point II./3. above, the
Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that,
with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences
deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of
outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
44. In this regard, the DRC pointed out 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 and for
the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
45. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision,
communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in
accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
46. Finally, the DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and
prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amount, in accordance with art.
24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
Page 14 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Wilde Gomes da Silva, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, AC Sparta Prague z.s, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 18,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of
effective payment as follows:
5% interest p.a. as from 26 January 2020 on EUR 3,000;
5% interest p.a. as from 26 February 2020 on EUR 3,000;
5% interest p.a. as from 26 March 2020 on EUR 3,000;
5% interest p.a. as from 26 April 2020 on EUR 3,000;
5% interest p.a. as from 26 May 2020 on EUR 3,000;
5% interest p.a. as from 25 May 2020 on EUR 3,500.
- EUR 37,636 as compensation for breach of the contract, plus 5% interest as from 18
June 2020 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the
relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with
this decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official
FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the
Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant
bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban
mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due
amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the
end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present
matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15 of 16
REF 20-00869/iml
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of
this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 16 of 16