Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01729
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
Passed on 19 August 2021,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Iker Guarrotxena
Vallejo
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA / France), Deputy Chairman
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member
Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Volos NFC, Greece
Represented by Mr Theoharis G. Grigoriou
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Iker Guarrotxena Vallejo, Spain
Represented by Mr Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez and Mr Alfonso León Lleó
INTERVENING PARTY:
Western United FC, Australia
Page 2 of 18
REF 20-01729
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 2 January 2020, the Greek club, Volos NFC (hereinafter: Claimant / Counter-Respondent
or Volos) and the Spanish player, Iker Guarrotxena Vallejo (hereinafter: Respondent /
Counter-Claimant or Player) concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2021 (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
According to clause 4.1. of the contract, Volos undertook to pay the player a monthly salary
of EUR 726 net of any taxes and withholdings as well as, according to clause 4.4., a total
amount of EUR 30,480 net of any taxes and withholdings, payable in 10 instalments as
follows:
1. EUR 2,100 on 30.01.2020;
2. EUR 2,100 on 28.02.2020;
3. EUR 2,100 on 30.03.2020;
4. EUR 2,100 on 30.04.2020;
5. EUR 2,244 on 30.05.2020;
6. EUR 3,836 on 30.09.2020;
7. EUR 4,000 on 30.11.2020;
8. EUR 4,000 on 30.01.2021;
9. EUR 4,000 on 30.03.2021;
10. EUR 4,000 on 30.05.2021.
3.
On 30 December 2019, the parties signed a “Private agreement” valid as from 2 January
2020 until 30 June 2021 (hereinafter: the Agreement), according to which Volos undertook
to pay the player an amount of EUR 65,000 for the first six months of his contract as well
as EUR 185,000 for the season 2020-2021.
4.
On 19 June 2020, the parties signed a “Private agreement – amendment” (hereinafter: the
1st Amendment), according to which the parties agreed to amend the financial terms of the
contract and the Private agreement due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, the parties
agreed that the player would receive the amount of EUR 15,500 for the season 2019-2020.
5.
On 2 September 2020, the parties executed an additional “Private agreement –
amendment” (hereinafter: the 2nd Agreement) according to which the player “has been
fully and completely repaid and no other form of claim has against the Club [Volos] for the
period 2019-2020, according to the 19.06.2020 private modification agreement and the
second period of the 30.12.2019 agreement is modified by the present private agreement
(…)”.
Page 3 of 18
REF 20-01729
6.
Pursuant to clause 3 of the 2nd agreement, the player “will receive totally the amount of
150.000 euros for the period 2020-2021 as follow:
30.000 € euros, according to the professional standard contract of 02/01/2020 [the
contract] that have signed the two parties, as follows:
-
10.164 € (726 € x 14 months) as salary and the rest of it 19.836 € in five (5)
doses, as mentioned in the professional standard contract of 02/01/2020 that
have signed the two parties, and the rest amount of
120.000 € euros, will be paid in five (5) equal doses as follows:
○ 24.000 € payable on 30-09-2020
○ 24.000 € payable on 30-11-2020
○ 24.000 € payable on 30-01-2021
○ 24.000 € payable on 30-03-2021
○ 24.000 € payable on 30-05-2021
(…) *The above amounts are net.
Both of the Parties consider the above-mentioned adjustment – diminution of the initially
agreed amounts, as reasonable and just, due to the special circumstances and the reasons
of force majeure. The agreed adjustment in accordance with the Legislative acts and
Ministerial Decisions of the Greek Government for the Covid-19 pandemic.”
7.
According to the 2nd agreement, “SPECIAL TERM: It is especially agreed between the parties
that if the player has an official proposal from another team during his contract with VOLOS
F.C., then he is free to transfer.”
8.
According to Volos, “All of a sudden on the 24 November [2020] he [the player]
disappeared and we have no contact with him.”
9.
On 24 November 2020, Volos allegedly sent a “written declaration – protest – invitation”
to the player, stating the following:
“As you are very well informed, after signing the 30.12.2019 Private Agreement and the
Professional Player’s Contract, which was amended by the 2.9.2020 Private Agreement,
you joined our team and you are an official member.
All of a sudden, we were informed that this morning you entered the team’s training and
very emotionally you said goodbye to your teammates, claiming that you are leaving the
team.
This behaviour of yours, does not characterize that of a professional footballer, on the
contrary it is completely unconventional and unprofessional.
The management of the team has no information about your possible departure from the
FC.
Page 4 of 18
REF 20-01729
Finally, you have disappeared and you do not come to any activity of our team, without
informing us about the reason.
FOR THESE REASONS
And with the explicit reservation of all our legal rights
We protest for your unprofessional and unconventional behaviour.
We invite you to join the team at the training sessions and all the activities.
Otherwise, we declare that … we reserve all our legal rights, to appeal before all the
competent courts and authorities, domestic sports and politics, but also international
(CAS), in order to be compensated for any damage.
The Bailiff, with the express reservation of all our rights, is hereby authorized to lawfully
present to whom it concerns to his knowledge and to the legal consequences, by copying
the contents of this present report in his relevant performance report.”
10. On 24 November 2020, the player’s legal representative sent a default notice styled “Formal
Reminder” to Volos, under the caption: “Unpaid amounts pursuant to the Employment
Contract in between the Club and the professional football player Mr. Iker Guarrotxena
(hereinafter referred to as the “Player”) and written reiteration that the Player will make use
of his right under the SPECIAL TERM.”
The body of the notice stated the following:
“The Player herein communicates you that he will make use of his right under the
employment contract titled “PRIVATE AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT” dated 2nd of September
2020.
“It is specially agreed between the parties that if the player has an official proposal from
another team during his contract with VOLOS F.C. then he is free to transfer.”
Further to that being communicated to your most esteemed club and obviously being
ratified by the latter, despite no need as per the clear contractual terms agreed between
the Parties, the Player requested his outstanding payables.
Unfortunately and for no any (sic) valid reason your Club has refused to satisfy it.
As a result thereof, you are herein granted a final deadline of 10 days, i.e. expiring on the
4th of December 2020 to satisfy all pending financial entitlements and provide the
underwritten the relevant tax certificates together with proof of it, or alternatively, the
Player will have no other resort but to seek redress before the competent FIFA judicial bodies
Page 5 of 18
REF 20-01729
Moreover, we kindly request you to send to us (email: …) within said time-limit at the latest
documentary proof of it.”
11.
On 26 November 2020, given that Volos’s previous notice remained allegedly unanswered
by the player, Volos allegedly sent a second notice to the player with the following content:
“As you are very well informed, you are a member of our team, as a professional football
player, according to the Professional Player’s Contract and the Private Agreements signed
between us.
Two days ago you disappeared and you have no contact with the Team Manager or anyone
else, without prior notice and without any reason. You also took a car that you do not
own and we do not have knowledge about that either.
FOR THESE REASONS
And with the express reservation of all our legal rights
We protest for your unprofessional and unconventional behaviour.
We ask you to immediately join the trainings of our football club and
We inform you that we are calling you for an apology, within two days from the receipt of
the present invitation, between 18.00 – 19.00, on the above mentioned address of the
offices of our F.C., in order to provide explanations for your behaviour.”
12.
On the same date, 26 November 2020, Volos “sent an e-mail to the FIFA Players' Status
Department, complaining about the Player’s behaviour”.
13.
Referring to the communication from Player’, Volos maintains that “While the Player was
absolutely absent, we received via e- mail a Formal Reminder, from Alfonso León Lleó, RuizHuerta & Crespo, Sports Lawyers on behalf of the Respondent. In this Reminder the
Respondent’s lawyer claimed that:
The Player herein communicates you that he will make use of his right under the
employment contract titled “PRIVATE AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT” dated 2nd of
September 2020.
“It is specially agreed between the parties that if the player has an official proposal from
another team during his contract with VOLOS F.C. then he is free to transfer.”
In this Reminder the Respondent via his lawyer, also stated that there are unpaid amounts
to him. But he did not specified (sic) the amount.”
Page 6 of 18
REF 20-01729
14.
On 2 December 2020, as Volos “neglected the formal reminder dated 24th of November
2020”, the player sent a further formal remainder by means of which he reiterated his
request of 24 November 2020.
15.
On an unknown date, the Australian club, Western United FC (hereinafter: Western United)
sent an email to Volos, with the following content:
“Dear Sirs,
We would like to communicate with your club that we make an official contact with your
club with the intention of negotiating a contract for the player, Mr Iker GUARROTXENA.
We understand that he is available to be released from his contract with your club?
Can you please confirm?
With this consideration, we kindly ask you to provide us with a Former Club TPO declaration
and proof of mutual termination so we can proceed further with our negotiations. (…).”
16.
On 3 December 2020, Volos replied to Wester United’s email, by stating that the player “is
still a member of our Club, as we don’t know the reason he left and is away from the
obligation of the team. For this reason, our Club has already taken all legal action.”
17.
On 4 December 2020, Volos sent an email to the player’s representative stating the
following:
“(…)
Your client Mr Guarrotxena has left the football club VOLOS F.C. without prior notice and
without just cause.
VOLOS F.C. does not owe any amounts to the player. Your client left on 24 November 2020
and he literally disappeared.
We have sent him two written formal invitations to present himself at the offices of our
club and he has no contact with us.
We reserve our right to seek redress before the competent FIFA judicial bodies. (…).”
18.
According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 12
December 2020, the player and the Australian club, Western United FC, concluded an
employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2021.
19.
On 8 January 2021, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee accepted the request
of the Football Federation Australia to provisionally register the player Iker Guarrotxena
Vallejo for its affiliated club, Western United FC.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
Page 7 of 18
REF 20-01729
20.
On 3 December 2020, Volos filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
21.
The claim of Volos
Volos lodged the present claim against the player requesting the following:
-
“determine that the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract between us,
without just cause and without prior notice;
-
order Mr. Guarrotxena to pay a compensation of € 50.000 (Fifty thousand Euros) with
interest for late payment over the amounts due, as follows, 5% p.a. as from 24
November 2020 and until effective payment;
-
alternatively determine that our Club has just cause to terminate the contract between
us, because of the Player’s behaviour;
-
Impose any sanction to the Club as considered appropriate.”
22.
Volos stated that despite having sent two “formal and official notices, he [the player] never
showed up or contacted in any means with our Club. He never gave an explanation for his
behaviour.”
23.
Volos further stated that it has fulfilled its obligation towards the player and paid “every
amount owned till November 2020.” and added “The only amounts that were pending,
were the instalment and the salary, which were specifically payable on the 30 November
2020. According to that, on the 24 November that he left the Club, we did not owe any
amount.”
24.
In continuation, Volos explained that the provision of the 2nd agreement according to which
“It is specially agreed between the parties that if the player has an official proposal from
another team during his contract with VOLOS F.C. then he is free to transfer.”, does not
mean “in any way and cannot be considered in any way that the Player can leave the team
whenever he wants, without following the formal terms to terminate a contract.”
25.
In this respect, Volos maintained that it “had no information, no notice that there is an
official proposal from another team, as the aforementioned term clearly and undoubtedly
requires. Our club should be first informed about such a proposal by this other team. Neither
the Player nor any other team contacted with us regarding a proposal.” and recalled art.
18 para. 3 of the FIFA RSTP.
26.
Volos added that it has suffered a serious damage as a result the player’s behaviour, in fact,
“In the middle of the championship we were left without a football player that we were
depending on. At this point we have to notice that the official transfer period has expired
Page 8 of 18
REF 20-01729
and we cannot make any other transfer to replace him.” and recalled art. 13 and 16 of the
FIFA RSTP.
27.
Finally, Volos maintained that the player has unilaterally terminated the contract and the
private agreements without just cause and prior notice and, therefore, the player “should
pay compensation for his action and for the damage he has caused us. Given that the Player
would receive a total amount of €150.000 (one hundred and fifty (sic) Euros) for the season
2020-2021, according to the Amendment signed on 2 September 2020, it is reasonable
and just to pay a compensation of € 50.000 (fifty thousand Euros), equal to two instalments
and two salaries. Alternatively, if your Chamber decides that the Respondent has not
unilaterally terminated his Contract, we request that our team terminates the contract with
just cause, without consequences of any kind, based on the Player’s behaviour” and recalled
Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP.
b.
Reply and counterclaim of the player
28.
The player rejected Volos’s claim and filed a counterclaim against it.
29.
The player firstly explained that, as a clear proof of his good faith, he agreed in reducing
his wages from EUR 185,000 per year to EUR 150,000, “i.e. an almost 20% reduction to
the benefit of the Club.” and Volos, “in exchange of said huge effort from the Player”,
agreed on “automatically releasing him for free if he was willing to be transferred to
another club”, as established in the 2nd agreement
30.
In continuation, the player affirmed that from the beginning of 2020-2021 season he had
joined the team and participated in all training sessions and all games and that in November
2020 he informed Volos “informally it had received an interest from a very challenging
option for him to be transferred and informed the Club he would make use of the relevant
contractual clause agreed between the Parties”.
31.
The player alleged that: “despite the utmost good faith and efforts made by the Player
towards the Club, the Club representatives told him that he had to renounce to all the
money that the Club owed him for them to release his ITC and issue his “proof of no TPO”
form requested for any international transfer under the FIFA RSTP. Said outstanding
payables amounted to EUR 86.00/- (Eighty-six Euro) and EUR 25,550.00/- (Twenty-five
thousand five hundred fifty Euro).”
32.
The player maintained that it remained obvious from the content of his letters sent to Volos
on 24 November and 2 December 2020 that he was claiming the outstanding salaries of
October and November 2020. In this regard, he explained that the “formal reminder was
sent at the end of the month (November 2020) and the Player was not paid fully for his
October 2020 salary neither did he receive any payment for November 2020.”
33.
Furthermore, the player held that Volos was formally informed via e-mail by Western United
that they wanted to secure the services of the player, by requesting a “Former Club TPO
Page 9 of 18
REF 20-01729
declaration and proof of mutual termination” to Volos, however, the latter rejected
Western United’s request.
34.
The player further held that the WhatsApp conversation with Volos “undoubtedly shows
that, at first the president of the Club agreed to transfer the Player and in the last moment,
days before the Player was leaving the country, he changed his mind to force the Player
resign the Club’s outstanding payments”.
35.
Moreover, the player pointed out that Volos blocked the player’s registration with Western
United and, as a consequence, it deprived the player of his right to play, forcing the latter
“to request the FIFA TMS for his provisional registration being granted after having been
forced to lose competitions and matches with his new team, despite his ITC had been
requested on the 15th of December 2020.”
36.
The player considered the special term of the 2nd agreement as a prior expression of the
mutual consent to terminate the employment agreement earlier free of charge in case of
an official proposal from another team.
37.
In continuation, the player, by referring to Volos’s communications of 24 and 26 November
2020, highlighted that Volos, since 24 November 2020, was aware of the coordinates of
the player’s legal advisors, however, it “decide to address some notifications it has now
filed in these FIFA proceedings which never reached the player.” Volos’ awareness of the
player’s representative’s coordinates is demonstrated by the email sent by Volos on 4
December 2020.
38.
The player further stated that Volos failed to pay his due salaries until the 23rd of November
and that he duly proceeded in accordance with article 12bis, par. 3 of the FIFA RSTP.
39.
In this respect, the player deemed to be entitled to receive overdue payables in the amount
of EUR 25,550 net of any taxes to part of his October salary (i.e. EUR 86), November salary
(i.e. EUR 710.) and the amounts paid every two months (i.e. EUR 24,757 payable in
November) as detailed below:
“Indeed, the Player was meant to receive every two months a payment in the
amount of EUR 24,000.00/- (due on 30th of November 2020 according to clause
3 to the Employment Contract) and another one of EUR 3,967.20/- (according to
said clause 3 to the Employment Contract).
Out of the 30 days of November, the Player worked there for 23 days, so the
relevant pro rata calculation of 23/30 is 0,766667.
Which calculated over the yearly payments due periodically to the Player of 24,000
and 3,967.2 is of EUR 24,757.00/-.
While over the Player’s salary for November of 726 + 200 is EUR 710.
Page 10 of 18
REF 20-01729
Together with the EUR 86 due for October, amounts in total to:
EUR 24,757.00/- + EUR 710/- + EUR 86/- = EUR 25,550.00/-.”
40.
Furthermore, the player affirmed that Volos’ allegations that it was not informed from
Western United about the interest of the latter in the player is false and highlighted that,
article 18, paragraph 3 of the FIFA RSTP was fulfilled by the player and Western United.
41.
In continuation, the player addressed the unilateral termination of the employment
relationship with Volos and stated that due to overdue payables and pursuant to the special
term of the 2nd agreement, he terminated the contract with just cause. In this regard, the
player considered the special term of the 2nd agreement as a prior expression of the mutual
consent to terminate the employment agreement earlier free of charge in case of an official
proposal from another team.
42.
Finally, the player maintained that on account of Volos’s actions, he “claims satisfaction of
the outstanding payables and an additional compensation in the amount of 6 (six) months
for egregious circumstances” in the amount of EUR 75,000, in accordance with art. 17 of
the FIFA RSTP.
43.
The player’s requests for relief were as follows:
1. “To fully reject any and all requests contained in the Claim of the Club dated 16th
of February 2021;
2. To declare that the Player terminated with just cause the employment contract;
3. As a consequence of the above to state that the Claimant shall not be entitled to
receive any financial amount from the Respondent;
4. To fully accept the present Counter-Claim;
5. As consequence of the above to oblige the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to pay
to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant outstanding salaries in the NET amount of
any and all taxes of EUR 25,550.00/- (Twenty-five thousand five hundred fifty Euro)
and additional compensation in the amount of EUR 75,000.00/- (Seventy five
thousand three hundred and fifty-six Euro);
6. To oblige the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to pay an additional five percent (5%)
annual interest on the amounts due to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as from
the due date of each payment until the date of the effective payment;
7. To impose the Claimant sporting sanctions in accordance with article 12 bis and
article 17 of the FIFA RSTP;
Page 11 of 18
REF 20-01729
8. As per all the above, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent shall bear any and all costs
of the present proceedings.”
c. Position of Volos regarding the player’s counterclaim
44.
In its response to the player’s counterclaim, Volos entirely reiterated the position provided
in its claim.
45.
It added that after the player’s decision to leave Volos, “Suddenly, and after his arbitrarily
decision, at the time we had already taken legal actions against him, appears an email,
without clear date, signed by another Club [Western United], in order to justify his
unconventional behaviour.”
46.
Volos’ requests for relief were as follows:
-
“To accept the present statement as well as our Claim in total;
-
determine that the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract between us,
without just cause and without prior notice;
-
order Mr. Guarrotxena to pay a compensation of € 50.000 (Fifty thousand Euros) with
interest for late payment over the amounts due, as follows, 5% p.a. as from 24
November 2020 and until effective payment;
-
alternatively determine that our Club has just cause to terminate the contract between
us, because of the Player’s behaviour;
-
Impose any sanction to the Club as considered appropriate;
-
To reject the counter-claim of the player Mr. IKER GUARROTXENA in total and accept
and establish that our club doesn’t owe any amount from any reason.”
d. Position of Western United FC
47.
Western United did not provide FIFA with its position despite having been invited to do so.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
Page 12 of 18
REF 20-01729
48.
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 3 December 2020 and
submitted for decision on 19 August 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of
the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
49.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and
b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2020), 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 Greek club, a
Spanish player and an Australian club.
50.
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 Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 December 2020, the October 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
51.
The Chamber recalled 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. Likewise, it stressed the wording
of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not
filed by the parties.
52.
In this respect, the DRC also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of
the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining
to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or
contained in TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
53.
The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into
the substance of the matter, the DRC started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts
as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the
DRC emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of
the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
Page 13 of 18
REF 20-01729
54.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether the termination of the
contract by the player took place in accordance with the relevant provision of the 2nd
agreement.
55.
In this context, the Chamber firstly wished to highlight that contrary to what is argued by
Volos, from the documentation on file, it can be established that at the time of the
termination of the employment relationship between Volos and the player, the latter had
informed Volos about his intention and also requested his outstanding salaries through the
date of the termination, which occurred on 24 November 2020.
56.
In this respect, the DRC deemed that Volos’ allegations about the lack of communication
by the player must be rejected as well as the one against Wester United, which on an
unknown date (presumably around end of November – beginning of December 2020, given
that Volos replied to its email on 3 December 2020) manifested its interest in signing the
player.
57.
In continuation, the DRC analysed the provision contained in the 2nd agreement which is at
the centre of the present dispute. Said clause reads as follows: “SPECIAL TERM: It is
especially agreed between the parties that if the player has an official proposal from another
team during his contract with VOLOS F.C., then he is free to transfer.”
58.
The DRC observed that the aforementioned clause is rather vague in detailing how the
parties should act in case the foreseen scenario would happen. However, the majority of
the Chamber, based on the literal interpretation of the clause at stake, established that the
player acted in accordance with the 2nd agreement, and, therefore, Volos is not entitled to
any compensation from the player. In particular, the majority of the Chamber interpreted
the clause as an agreement between the parties that, in case the player would receive an
offer from a third party, the 2nd agreement would be mutually terminated before its expiry
date with the player becoming a free agent and, therefore, being able to join another club.
59.
For the same reason, the player’s request that he “terminated with just cause the
employment contract” is also rejected. In this regard, the majority of the Chamber
established that no unilateral termination of the employment relationship between the
parties occurred but rather it was early terminated by mutual agreement in view of the
insertion of the “Special Term” clause.
60.
Consequently, the majority of the Chamber decided to set aside the argumentation raised
by Volos and to reject its claim.
61.
In continuation, the DRC took notice of the player’s request for EUR 25,550 net,
corresponding to the amount that remained outstanding at the time of the termination of
the employment relationship with Volos.
Page 14 of 18
REF 20-01729
62.
Subsequently, the DRC took note of Volos’ allegations according to which it stated that:
“The only amounts that were pending were the instalment and the salary, which were
specifically payable on the 30 November 2020. According to that, on the 24 November that
he left the Club, we did not owe any amount.”
63.
In this respect, the DRC noted the Volos failed to provide evidence about the amounts
effectively paid to the player and, therefore, the majority of the Chamber decided to
partially accept the player’s counterclaim and to condemn Volos to pay outstanding
remuneration to the player.
ii. Consequences
64.
Having stated the above, the Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the
time of termination was the following:
EUR 86 (corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary of October 2020);
EUR 557 (corresponding to the 23 days for the salary of November 2020 = EUR
726/30*23 days);
EUR 3,541 (corresponding to the pro-rata amount payable by Volos on 30
November 2020 in the amount of EUR 4,000 as per clause 3 of the 2nd agreement
which refers to the last 5 instalments payable to the player as shown in clause 4.4
of the contract = 4,000/61days – from 01.10.2020 until 30.11.2020 - *54days –
from 01.10.2020 until 23.11.2020);
EUR 21,246 (corresponding to the pro-rata amount payable by Volos on 30
November 2020 in the amount of EUR 24,000 as per clause 3 of the 2nd agreement
= 24,000/61days – from 01.10.2020 until 30.11.2020 - *54days – from
01.10.2020 until 23.11.2020);
65.
Consequently, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the majority of the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts
which were outstanding at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 23,430.
66.
In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the majority of the Chamber decided to
award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from their
due dates until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67.
Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, 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
Page 15 of 18
REF 20-01729
party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in
due time.
68.
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 and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
69.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the club does
not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the
player communicates the relevant bank details to the club, provided that the decision is final
and binding, 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 club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
70.
The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3
of the Regulations.
71.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
d.
Costs
72.
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
73.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Volos NFC, is rejected
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Iker Guarrotxena Vallejo, is partially
accepted.
Page 16 of 18
REF 20-01729
3.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the
following amounts:
- EUR 86 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2020 until
the effective date of payment;
- EUR 25,344 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2020
until the effective date of payment.
4.
Any further claims lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant are rejected.
5.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank account to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
must pay the due amounts.
6.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in
accordance with this decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the
official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amounts due, plus interest as established above are not paid by the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Respondent / CounterClaimant of the relevant bank details to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the following
consequences shall arise:
1. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall be banned 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. The aforementioned ban
mentioned will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due
amounts are paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amounts as per in this decision are 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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17 of 18
REF 20-01729
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 18 of 18