Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15156
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 October 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Jose Antonio Gomez Marquez
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Jon NEWMAN (USA), Member
Iñigo RIESTRA (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Jose Antonio Gomez Marquez, Spain
Represented by Senn Ferrero
RESPONDENT:
Hellas Verona F.C. S.P.A., Italy
Represented by Lombardi Associates
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15156
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 27 July 2022, the Spanish player, Jose Antonio Gomez Marquez (hereinafter: the Player
or the Claimant), and the Italian club, Hellas Verona F.C. S.P.A. (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
Clause 1 of the Contract established the following (freely translated into English):
“ART. 1 The Footballer undertakes, as a member of the F.I.G.C., to carry out his athletic
and competitive activity for the benefit of the Company from 27/07/2022 until
30/06/2024, the start date of his activity being 28/07/2022.”
3.
In clause 2 of the Contract, the parties stipulated the Player’s remuneration (freely
translated into English):
“ART. 2 The Company, pursuant to Art. 4.1 of the Collective Agreement, undertakes to pay
the Player (for multi-year contracts, indicate the amount agreed upon for each football
season).
The remuneration must be expressed gross:
a) Fixed part
for the 2022/2023 season a gross remuneration of €21,500.00
Notes: plus €8,000 as travelling allowance
for the 2023/2024 season a gross remuneration of €21,500.00
Notes: in addition to €8,000 as travelling allowance
Gross remuneration due as participation in any promotional/advertising initiatives of the
Company is included in the remuneration.
b) Variable part (the agreement of a variable part is optional):
for the 2022/2023 season a gross remuneration of €7,500.00:
(equal to 5,000 net) at the 1st (first) appearance in the Serie A with the first team of Hellas
Verona FC.
The bonus, once accrued, will no longer be considered in future years.
The bonus, if accrued, will be paid by 31 December 2023. For the award attribution
reference is made to Match Report Lega Serie A or, alternatively, to another published
source or equivalent document issued by Lega Serie A.
for the 2022/2023 season a gross remuneration of € 14,500.00:
(equal to € 10,000 net) upon reaching 5th (fifth) career appearance in Serie A with the
first team of Hellas Verona FC.
The bonus, once accrued, will no longer be considered in future years.
The bonus, if accrued, will be paid by 31 December 2023. Reference is made to the Match
Report Lega Serie A or, alternatively, to another published source or equivalent document
issued by Lega Serie A for the award.
for the 2023/2024 season a gross remuneration of € 7,500.00:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15156
(equal to 5,000 net) at the 1st (first) appearance in the Serie A with the first team of Hellas
Verona FC.
The bonus if accrued in past seasons will not be considered valid for this football season
and will not be considered in future years.
The bonus, if accrued, will be paid by 31 December 2024. For the payment of the bonus,
reference is made to the Match Report Lega Serie A or, alternatively, to another published
source or equivalent document issued by Lega Serie A.
for the 2023/2024 season a gross remuneration of € 14,500.00:
(equal to 10,000 net) upon reaching the 5th (fifth) appearance in his career in Serie A
with the first team of Hellas Verona FC.
The bonus if accrued in past seasons will not be considered valid for this football season
and will not be considered in future years.
The bonus, once accrued, will no longer be considered in future years.
The bonus, if accrued, shall be paid by 31 December 2024. Reference is made to the
Match Report of the Lega Serie A or, alternatively, to another published source or
equivalent document issued by the Lega Serie A for the award.”
4.
In clause 3, the following provision was established (freely translated into English):
“ART. 3 By signing this sports performance contract, the parties acknowledge and
undertake to fully comply with the provisions contained in the Collective Agreement in
force (text and Annexes), including, but not limited to, the following provisions: art. 2.2
(limits to the option agreement); arts. 3.1 - 3.5 (obligations to deposit the Contract and
the Other Documents); arts. 3.4 and 3.6. ("the club and the players are obliged to strictly
observe the provisions of the law, CONI and the FIGC regarding health protection and the
fight against doping. The player must undergo the medic sampling and controls,
including periodic and/or preventive ones, including blood/urine sampling and controls,
arranged by the club, CONI and the FIGC for the implementation of anti-doping controls
and for the best protection of his health"); Art. 11.1. - 11.7. (non-compliance, penalty
clauses, warning, fine, reduction in salary, exclusion from training and preparation,
termination); Arts. 13.7.-13.9. (effects of termination on temporary transfers and playersharing); Arts. 15.1.-15.7. (unsuitability, incapacity, duration, effects and causes); Art. 16.4
(waiver of the insured player's right to claim compensation for injury against the
company); Art. 16.6-16.7 (communication and reporting obligations); Art. 16.8 (obligation
to undergo a fiscal visit). The parties also undertake to comply with future Collective
Agreements.”
5.
Clause 4 of the Contract included the following jurisdiction clause (freely translated into
English):
“ART. 4 The resolution of all disputes concerning the interpretation, execution or
termination of the Contract or of the Other Agreements, as well as all disputes that are
in any way related to the relationship between the Company and the Player are referred
to the “Collegio Arbitrale” (Arbitral Tribunal), which shall rule in the manner, at the time
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15156
and in accordance with the provisions of the relative Regulations, which constitute an
appendix to the Collective Agreement.”
6.
Finally, clause 5 stipulated (freely translated into English):
“ART.5 By signing this contract, the parties undertake, by virtue of their common
membership in the sporting sector and the obligations consequently assumed by their
membership or affiliation, as well as the spécialité of the legislative discipline applicable
to the case in question to observe the Statutes and the Federal rules;
to accept the full and final effectiveness of any provisions adopted by the FIGC, its Bodies
and delegated parties in matters in any way related to the performance of the FIGC's
activities, including the relative technical and disciplinary disputes, as well as the
decisions of the “Collegio Arbitrale” (Arbitral Tribunal), declaring in particular to accept
without reservation the arbitration clause as per Art. 30 of the FIGC Statutes.
Any violation or action in any way tending to circumvent the aforementioned obligations
will result in the application of the disciplinary sanctions provided for by the Statutes and
the Regulations.”
7.
On an unspecified date, the Club deducted EUR 300 from the Player’s salary for June 2024
due to “charges for extra technical equipment”.
8.
On an unspecified date, the Player and a contact saved as “Sogliano Sean”, the Club’s
Sporting Director, had the following WhatsApp conversation (freely translated into English):
Player: “Good morning, Sogliano! What are now those 300 euros you took from me? I
didn't even take the shirts that belonged to me and I only have four shorts that the
storekeeper gave me before I went back to Spain, talk to the storekeeper and you'll see. I
don't know if you did it to hurt me because I don't know what to think anymore. It's all
unbelievable...”.
Mr. Sogliano: “Talk to Mirko”.
9.
Also on an unspecified date, the Player and a contact saved as “Mirko Zardini”, the Club’s
General Secretary, held the following WhatsApp conversation (freely translated into
English):
Player: ‘’Good morning, Mirko! What are now those 300 euros that you have taken from
me? I didn't even take the shirts that belonged to me and I only have four shorts that the
storekeeper gave me before I went back to Spain, talk to the storekeeper and you'll see. I
don't know if you did it to hurt me because I don't know what to think anymore. It's all
unbelievable...”
Mr. Zardini: “Everything we do is recorded and documented. The only one who keeps
changing all the time seems to me to be someone else”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15156
Player: “I want to see all the documents that say which shirts I have taken. I spoke to the
storekeeper and he said there were 40 shirts per player and I haven't even taken half of
them. And I hardly took any shorts, only T-shirts, so I don't understand.
Player: “I find it shameful that they don't pay me what belongs to me and try to take
money from me without any sense.”
Mr. Zardini: “You took 32 shirts and they didn't charge you for them = ZERO euros.
You took 12 shorts and they cost you 25 euros each = Total 300 €.
The shorts are not free, only the shirts which you can take one per match, i.e. 38 shirts.
This is what the storekeeper has written.”
Player: “And where are those shorts? Because I only have the last ones that Thomas gave
me before I left.”
Mr. Zardini: “I think the opposite is true. We also paid 3,000 in rent that was not officially
due and the director and the president agreed with us.”
Player: “Normal, because they owe me about 35,000 euros. 3,000 seems to me to have
gone well.”
Mr. Zardini: “30,000 you say... because the contract for the 23/24 season talks about
25,000 and you took it all. I base myself on facts! You based on the promises made by
your former agent? right?”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 7 July 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA, which was amended on 15
July 2024. A summary of the parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
11. According to the Claimant in his amended claim, the Club unlawfully deducted him EUR
300 from his salary for June 2024. In this regard, the Player asserted that the Club failed to
provide any evidence to demonstrate the alleged justification for the deduction.
12. Additionally, the Player stated that the Contract included a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause
that referred to the “Collegio Arbitrale” and to a Collective Bargaining Agreement
(hereinafter: CBA). Nonetheless, the CBA expired on 30 June 2024, and by the time the claim
was lodged, it had not been renewed. Therefore, FIFA is competent to hear the claim.
13. The requests for relief of the Claimant, as amended, were the following (freely translated
into English):
“I.- Declare that the present Application is admissible;
II.- Uphold in full this Claim brought by the Player against Hellas Verona and order the
Club to pay the Player the sum of three hundred euros (€300.00) which has been unduly
deducted from the Player's salary for the month of June 2024, with interest of 5% per
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15156
annum from the date on which they should have been paid, until the date of their
effective payment.
V.- Finally, order Hellas Verona to bear all the costs of the present proceedings.”
b. Position of the Respondent
14. According to the Respondent, FIFA does not have jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s claim.
In this respect, the Club argued that in clause 3 of the Contract, the parties made an
unequivocal choice in favour of the Italian NDRC, by referring to the CBA. By the time the
Claimant lodged the claim, the CBA in force was the one that expired on 30 June 2024.
Despite this expiration, the CBA has been extended retroactively from 1 July 2024, ensuring
that there is no break in its continuity until successfully negotiations have been held,
terminating on 3 February 2025. In this sense, according to the Club, by applying the CBA,
there is no doubt that the only competent court to decide was the Italian NDRC.
15. The Club stated that also the exclusive jurisdiction of the Italian NDRC was stipulated in
clause 4 of the Contract, which established that any dispute would be referred to the
“Collegio Arbitrale”. Additionally, in clause 5 the parties agreed to accept the full and final
effect of any measures adopted by the FIGC and its bodies, as well as the decisions of the
“Collegio Arbitrale”.
16. According to the Club, the jurisdiction clause is exclusive, as no other court of arbitration
body is named within the Contract. Thus, the parties have explicitly opted in writing that
any dispute be decided by an NDRC.
17. In this regard, the Club asserted that the Italian NDRC complied with the requirements
provided under art. 22 par. 1 lit b) of the RSTP, as it was acknowledged by the DRC in the
decision of case FPSD-10809, based on the requirements outlined within Circular No. 1010.
In particular and based on the “Regulations on the functioning and procedure of the
Arbitration Panel”, the Arbitral Tribunal complies with (i) the principle of parity when
constituting the arbitration tribunal (art. 3.1 and 3.2), (ii) the right to an independent and
impartial tribunal (art. 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4), (iii) the principle of a fair hearing (art. 5 and 6.2), (iv)
the right to contentious proceedings (art. 6.1), (v) the right to equal treatment (art. 4.6.b),
(vi) right to receive a decision (art. 9), (vii) confidentiality (art. 3.6, 4.1, 4.6 and 9.6), and (viii)
principle of access to justice (art. 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 6, 6.4, 7, 7.1, 8.1, 8.2, 8.5, 8.7).
18. Regarding the argument raised by the Player concerning the CBA’s expiration, the Club
assured that the CBA was extended and, therefore, was in force at the time of filing the
claim.
19. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that the deduction was made based on the Club’s internal
regulations that were duly signed by the Player. In this respect, these regulations stipulated
that players could purchase additional items, such as shorts, according to the official price
list provided by the Club, in which the official match shorts were priced at EUR 25. Also
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15156
according to these regulations, the corresponding costs would subsequently be deducted
from the players’ salaries. Since the Player retained 12 additional shorts than the number
he was allowed to keep, the deduction was correctly made and reflected in the salary
receipt.
20. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
“In consideration of all the above, the Respondent respectfully requests that the FIFA
Football Tribunal issue a decision ASCERTAINING that FIFA has no jurisdiction to pass a
decision in this dispute.
On a subsidiary basis, in the event that the FIFA Football Tribunal finds that FIFA has
jurisdiction in this matter, quod non, the Respondent respectfully requests that the
Football Tribunal issue a decision REJECTING the Claim in its entirety.”
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
21. In his rejoinder, the Claimant argued that it is undisputed that, in accordance with the CBA
in force at the time of signing the Contract, there was a jurisdiction clause in favour of the
“Collegio Arbitrale”. Moreover, the Player did not dispute that the Italian NDRC meets the
requirements outlined in Circular No. 1010. However, at the time of filing the claim, this
tribunal was not constituted due to the CBA’s expiration. Thus, FIFA is competent to decide
the matter at stake.
22. Additionally, the Player mentioned that the Club’s argument regarding the retroactive
effects of the CBA shall be disregarded. In any case, this cannot be accepted based solely
on a private document in Italian dated 7 August 2024, as at the time the Player lodged the
claim, he could not access any tribunal other than FIFA’s Football Tribunal.
23. The Player reaffirmed that the clause was also not exclusive, and that FIFA’s competence
was not limited. He also mentioned that the clause was indirect, as it referred to a CBA.
24. Regarding the deduction, the Player denied having received 27 shorts, i.e., 12 more than
the 15 he could freely access according to the internal regulations. Conversely, he
acknowledged having received only four shorts. The Club had the burden of proving this
allegation and failed to do so. In any event, the internal regulations cannot be considered,
as (i) the Player does not speak Italian, the language of the regulations, and (ii) the
regulations were imposed on him and not individually negotiated.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
25. In its duplica, the Respondent reaffirmed that FIFA is not competent to hear this claim, as
the parties opted to refer any dispute to the Italian NDRC. In this respect, the Club asserted
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15156
that the document in Italian that extended the CBA stated: “... to extend, with retroactive
effect starting from July 1, 2024, and thus without any substantial interruption, the AIC-LNPA
Collective Agreement signed on March 10, 2023, and amended on August 8, 2023, and November
22, 2023”. Therefore, at the time the claim was lodged, the CBA was still in force, and FIFA
is not competent.
26. According to the Club, the Player received 32 shirts out of the 40 available during the season
and 27 shorts out of the 15 available during the season, i.e., 12 more than the 15 he could
freely access. Furthermore, the Club argued that it did not act in bad faith, as the internal
regulations are standard rules applied to all Club employees. Additionally, the Claimant
signed the internal regulations and cannot argue now that he does not understand their
provisions. In any event, the Contract is also in Italian.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15156
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
27. 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 7 July 2024 and submitted for decision on 30
October 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
28. 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 (June 2024 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is – in principle - competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
Spanish player and an Italian club.
29. Notwithstanding, the Chamber took note of the fact that the Respondent challenged the
jurisdiction of FIFA to deal with the present matter.
30. More specifically, the Respondent alleged that the “Collegio Arbitrale” was competent to
deal with the present matter, by virtue of art. 4 of the Contract, and that said deciding body
was an equitably represented, independent, national arbitration tribunal as required by
the FIFA Regulations. Therefore, as the Respondent mentioned that the Contract included
an exclusive clause, it stated that FIFA did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
31. The Chamber also observed that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to
adjudicate the present claim, asserting that the clause purportedly excluding FIFA’s
jurisdiction was indirect, not exclusive, and that at the time of filing the claim, the CBA was
not in force. In this regard, the Player stated that the CBA expired on 30 June 2024 and that
the claim was lodged on 7 July 2024.
32. Finally, the Club contended that the CBA was extended until 3 February 2025, with
retroactive effects and without any substantial interruption.
33. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber first recalled that art. 26 par. 1 lit c) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition and February 2024)
establishes that “Article 22 paragraph 1 b) and c) shall apply only to cases brought to FIFA as
from 1 January 2025. Any other case shall be assessed according to the previous regulations”.
As a result, the Chamber decided that it had to assess this part of the claim using the May
2023 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, as this claim was
brought to FIFA before 1 January 2025.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15156
34. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), FIFA is, in principle,
competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an
international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such
dispute to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at
national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining
agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or
in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national
arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the principles
contained in the FIFA NDRC Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
35. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether
the provision contained in art. 4 of the Contract constituted a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the “Collegio Arbitrale”. The Chamber hereby recalled the
wording thereof, which stipulated (freely translated into English):
“ART. 4 The resolution of all disputes concerning the interpretation, execution or
termination of the Contract or of the Other Agreements, as well as all disputes that are
in any way related to the relationship between the Company and the Player are referred
to the “Collegio Arbitrale” (Arbitral Tribunal), which shall rule in the manner, at the time
and in accordance with the provisions of the relative Regulations, which constitute an
appendix to the Collective Agreement.”
36. Having analysed the wording of the abovementioned clause, the Chamber noted that clear
reference is made to the “Collegio Arbitrale” therein, and, not least importantly, that the
latter is further substantiated by way of the CBA which is incorporated into the Contract.
37. Additionally, the Chamber recalled that clause 3 of the Contract made also reference to the
CBA, stating that the parties acknowledge and undertake to fully comply with the provisions
contained in the CBA in force and in any future CBA. Furthermore, in clause 5, the parties
agreed to respect the decisions of the “Collegio Arbitrale”. Moreover, the Chamber noted
that no reference was made to any tribunal other than the “Collegio Arbitrale” to support
the argument that the clause was not exclusive.
38. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to highlight that, although the clause
referred to the CBA regarding the regulations on which the “Collegio Arbitrale” should rule,
it referred any dispute directly to the “Collegio Arbitrale”.
39. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the jurisdiction clause under art. 4 of the Contract was
clear and exclusive in its wording.
40. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the argument raised
by the Claimant, who stated that the CBA was not in force at the time he lodged the claim.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15156
Specifically, the Player mentioned that, at the time of filing the claim on 7 July 2024, the
“Collegio Arbitrale” was not constituted, as the CBA had expired on 30 June 2024. Therefore,
at that moment, he had no choice but to lodge the claim before FIFA.
41. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the validity of the CBA was indeed from 31 January
2023 to 30 June 2024. Nonetheless, the Chamber also observed that the Respondent
argued that the CBA was extended until 3 February 2025, with retroactive effects and
without any substantial interruption, and submitted a document intended to support these
allegations. The Chamber, however, remarked that this document was submitted by the
Club with the response to the claim, but only in Italian, without providing a full translation.
42. Additionally, the Chamber noted that in his rejoinder, the Player objected to the document
and contested the alleged extension of the CBA. The Club, however, only included a partial
translation with its final comments.
43. At this point, the Chamber first wished to refer to art. 13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
that stipulates that “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.”.
44. The Chamber then highlighted again that, in his rejoinder, the Player specifically stated that
the Club’s argument could not be accepted based solely on a private document in Italian.
In this respect, it was the Club’s burden to prove that the CBA was actually extended by
providing a full translation of the document. Nevertheless, and even after the Player’s
argument that the Chamber could not rely on the document because it was in Italian
without any translation, the Club failed to provide a full translation in accordance with art.
13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, and only provided a partial translation of one sentence.
45. Hence, the Chamber concluded that the document submitted by the Club could not be
considered, as the Club only filed it in the original language, without providing a full
translation into English, Spanish or French.
46. Based on the above, the Chamber noted that the Club did not sufficiently prove the actual
existence and validity of the CBA at the time the claim was lodged. In fact, there are no
other elements on file to establish that the “Collegio Arbitrale” was in place at the time the
Player filed his claim and that he should have lodged his claim before the NDRC. The
Chamber specifically remarked that it was the Club’s responsibility to prove that the
“Collegio Arbitrale” was functioning on 7 July 2024, and it failed to meet its burden of proof
by not substantiating the allegation that the CBA was extended.
47. On account of all the above and referring to the principle of burden of proof contained in
art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s
objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter must be rejected, and
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15156
that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent and shall consider the present matter
as to its substance.
48. 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 (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 July 2024, the June 2024 edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
49. 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
50. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
51. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute whether the Club correctly made a deduction from the Player’s
salary.
52. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, the Club unlawfully deducted him EUR
300 from his salary for June 2024, and failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate the
alleged justification for the deduction. In this regard, the Player denied having received 12
additional shorts beyond the 15 he could freely access according to the internal
regulations.
53. Conversely, the Club argued that the deduction was made based on the Club’s internal
regulations. According to the Club, the Player retained 12 additional shorts beyond the
number he was allowed to keep, and, therefore, the deduction was correctly made.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15156
54. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
deduction made by the Club was correct.
55. First, the Chamber referred again to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and remarked
that a party that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it. Thus, the Club had the burden
of providing evidence demonstrating that the deduction of the EUR 300 was made because
the Player retained 12 additional shorts.
56. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Club only provided an alleged list of the
shirts and shorts taken by the Club’s players, which, allegedly, showed that the Player took
12 shorts and that the total charge for this was EUR 300.
57. Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that this list is only signed and stamped by the Club, and
there is no signature from the Player. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that this
document was created solely by the Club, without any acknowledgement of the Player, who
strongly denied having taken 12 shorts.
58. Thus, the Chamber concluded that, based solely on this evidence, it is not possible to
determine that the Player took 12 shorts and that he was obliged to pay the Club EUR 300.
59. Based on the above, and due to the lack of evidence, the Chamber determined that the
Club did not have any grounds to make a deduction from the Player’s salary. Therefore, the
Chamber decided that the Player be awarded EUR 300, plus interest.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15156
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.
63. 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.
64. 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
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15156
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Jose Antonio Gomez
Marquez.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Jose Antonio Gomez Marquez, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Hellas Verona F.C. S.P.A., must pay to the Claimant EUR 300 as
outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant 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 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 in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15156
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – 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. 17