Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14602
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Miguel Ángel Guerrero Martín
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Miguel Ángel Guerrero Martín, Spain
Represented by Alejandro Fernández Marco
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Anorthosis Famagusta, Cyprus
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14602
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 22 January 2023, the Spanish player Miguel Ángel Guerrero Martín (hereinafter, the Claimant or
the Player) and the Cypriot club Anorthosis Famagusta (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the First Contract), valid as from 22 January 2023
until 31 May 2024.
2.
In accordance with Clause 1 of the First Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player
(hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) the following remuneration:
• From 31/01/2023 until 31/05/2023 a monthly gross salary of €11,498.78, a total annual of
€57,493.90 (€10,000.00 net monthly, a total annual of €50,000.00 net).
• From 31/08/2023 until 31/05/2024 a monthly gross salary of €11,498.78, a total annual of
€114,987.78 (€10,000.00 net monthly, a total annual of €100,000.00 net), provided that the present
Agreement is still in effect.
3.
As per Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract, which is attached to the First Contract:
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved to the applicable regulations of
the CFA”.
4.
On 23 January 2023, the Parties concluded the so-called “Supplementary Agreement” (hereinafter, the
First Agreement), in accordance with which:
“WHEREAS: (…)
D. The parties wish to update the remuneration, bonus and associated benefits that the Player will be
entitled to receive, under the employment agreement, as well as amend supplementary clauses”.
5.
Based on the above, the Parties agreed upon the following:
1. In addition to the monthly salaries agreed in the [First Contract], the Club will pay to the Player the
following amounts:
1.1. For the period starting from 31/01/2023 and ending 31/05/2023 the total additional amount of
€65.000 (sixty-five hundred thousand euro) net and subject to the term of the present agreement,
in five (5) equal monthly instalments of €13.000 (thirteen thousand euro) net.
1.2. For the period starting from 31/08/2023 and ending 31/05/2024 the total additional amount of
€130.000 (one hundred and thirty thousand euro) net and subject to the term of the present
agreement, in ten (10) equal monthly instalments of €13.000 (thirteen thousand euro) net,
provided that the [First Contract] is active at the time of the payments are due.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14602
2. Extra Payments
2.1. The Club will pay to the Player an extra allowances along with the Player’s salary every month,
for the Player’s personal expenses such as housing, car rental etc. as follows:
2.1.1. €5.000 (five thousand euro) net per season in 5 (five) instalments (January 2023 to May
2023) for season 2022-23.
2.1.2. €10.000 (ten thousand euro) net per season in 10 (ten) instalments (August 23 to May 24)
for season 2023-24, provided that the [First Contract] is still active at the time the
payments are due.
6.
Pursuant to Clause 11 of the First Agreement,
“All and every disputes the Parties explicitly and irrevocably agree that will be introduced exclusively
(“exclusive agreed jurisdiction”) before the competent authority and/or committee and/or body of FIFA
Football Tribunal. Any decision of the FIFA Football Tribunal might be appealed only before the Court of
Arbitration of Sports based in Lausanne, Switzerland by a Panel consisting of one (1) member and using
the English language. The Regulations of FIFA and Cyprus FA and the legislation of Republic of Cyprus will
be used by the hearing committees at all stages”.
7.
On 8 February 2024, the Parties concluded a new employment contract (hereinafter, the Second
Contract), which would be valid as from 1 June 2024 until 30 June 2026.
8.
According to Clause 1 of the Second Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player the following
salary:
9.
•
From 31/08/2024 until 31/05/2025 a monthly gross salary of €6,316.18, a total annual of €63,161.77
(€5,000.00 net monthly, a total annual of €50,000.00 net).
•
From 31/08/2025 until 31/05/2026 a monthly gross salary of €6,316.18, a total annual of €63,161.77
(€5,000.00 net monthly, a total annual of €50,000.00 net), provided that the present Agreement is
still in effect.
According to Clause 2 of the Second Contract:
“2.1. The present Contract is regulated by the provisions of the Standard Employment Contract, as these
have been agreed between the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) and the Cyprus Footballer’s Union (PASP)
and these provisions have been codified in Annex 1 of the CFA Registration and Transfer of Players
Regulations.
2.2. In case of conflict, the terms of the Standard Employment Contract shall take precedence over the
terms of the present Contract”.
10. As per Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract, which is attached to the Second Contract:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14602
“Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved to the applicable regulations of
the CFA”.
11. Also on 8 February 2024, the President of the Club, Mr Andreas Santis, and the Player concluded the
so-called “Private Agreement”, in accordance with which:
1. The duration of this Contract shall be from 1/06/2024 until 30/06/2026.
2. The President will pay the Player an annual amount of €10.000 (ten thousand euro) as follows:
- €10.000 (ten thousand euro) from 31/8/2024 to 31/5/2025 in ten equal monthly instalments of
€1.000 (one thousand euro).
- €10.000 (ten thousand euro) from 31/8/2025 to 31/5/2026 in ten equal monthly instalments of
€1.000 (one thousand euro).
12. On 9 February 2024, the Parties concluded a new “Supplementary Agreement” (hereinafter, the Second
Agreement), in accordance with which:
“WHEREAS: (…)
D. The parties wish to update the remuneration, bonus and associated benefits that the Player will be
entitled to receive, under the employment agreement, as well as amend supplementary clauses”.
3. In addition to the monthly salaries agreed in the [Second Contract], the Club will pay to the Player the
following amounts:
1.3. For the period starting from 31/08/2024 and ending 31/05/2025 the total additional amount of
€230.000 (two hundred and thirty thousand euro) net and subject to the term of the present
agreement, in five (10) equal monthly instalments of €23.000 (twenty-three thousand euro) net.
1.4. For the period starting from 31/08/2025 and ending 31/05/2026 the total additional amount of
€230.000 (one hundred and thirty thousand euro) net and subject to the term of the present
agreement, in ten (10) equal monthly instalments of €23.000 (twenty-three thousand euro) net.
13. In accordance with Clause 10 of the Second Agreement,
“All and every disputes the Parties explicitly and irrevocably agree that will be introduced exclusively
(“exclusive agreed jurisdiction”) before the competent authority and/or committee and/or body of FIFA
Football Tribunal. Any decision of the FIFA Football Tribunal might be appealed only before the Court of
Arbitration of Sports based in Lausanne, Switzerland by a Panel consisting of one (1) member and using
the English language. The Regulations of FIFA and Cyprus FA and the legislation of Republic of Cyprus will
be used by the hearing committees at all stages”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14602
14. On 2 April 2024, the Player put the Club in default, requesting payment of EUR 86,000 net as per the
following amounts and concepts:
• Pending partial payment of the monthly remuneration and extra allowances of December 2023:
14.000 € net.
• Payment of the monthly remuneration and extra allowances of January 2024: 24.000 € net.
• Payment of the monthly remuneration and extra allowances of February 2024: 24.000 € net.
• Payment of the monthly remuneration and extra allowances of March 2024: 24.000 € net.
15. The Player granted the Club a deadline of fifteen days to comply with its financial obligations.
16. On 4 April 2024, the CEO of the Club, Mr Marinos Mitrou, replied to the Player’s default notice in the
the following terms:
“I understand that you are in direct contact with the President Mr Andreas Santis regarding the subject
matter. Is this correct?”.
17. On 19 April 2024, the Player terminated the employment relationship based on arts. 14 and 14bis
of the Regulations.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 10 May 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
19. According to the Player, he had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship
with the Respondent on 19 April 2024 after the repeated defaults of the Club in the payment of his
remuneration.
20. The Player claimed being entitled to outstanding remuneration amounting to EUR 109,199.99 net,
as well as to compensation in the amount of EUR 612,800.01 net, corresponding to the residual
value of the employment relationship.
21. The Player requested the following relief (freely translated from Spanish):
- That the Club be ordered to pay the Player compensation as a consequence of the unjustified and
serious breach by the Club, due to the termination with just cause actioned by the Player of the
employment relationship, corresponding to the remuneration ceased to be received until the date of
termination of the same (30 June 2026) and amounting to EUR 612,8001.01 net as compensation for
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14602
breach of contract without just cause, based on art. 14, 14bis, 17 par. 1 and 18 par. 4 of the RSTP and
as related through this claim.
- That the Club be ordered to pay to the Player a default interest of 5% per annum on the amount
referred to in the previous paragraph, as from 19 April 2024.
- That sanctions arising from art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations are imposed on the Club, in its maximum
degree, for this fact; having produced the termination of the Contract in the protected period.
- That the Club be ordered to pay to the Player the amount of EUR 101,199.99 net corresponding to
unpaid salaries as of the date of termination with just cause, which are still owed to him at the present
time.
- That the Club be ordered to pay to the Player interest for late payment of 5% per annum on the amount
referred to in the previous paragraph, from the date on which each of the aforementioned amounts
should have been paid.
b. Position and counterclaim of the Respondent
22. In its reply, the Club denied that FIFA was competent to hear the present dispute, based on Clause
13 of the Standard Employment Contract, which is an integral part of the employment agreement,
and in accordance with which in case of dispute the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the
Cyprus Football Association (the NDRC and the CFA) would have exclusive jurisdiction.
23. According to the Club, the NDRC of the CFA is fully impartial and independent, as established in CAS
2012/A/2983, CAS 2014/A/3656 and CAS 2016/A/4646.
24. The Club argued that the current regulations concerning the composition of the NDRC are the result
of an agreement between the CFA and the Cyprus Footballers’ Union (PASP). In this respect, two of
the ordinary members of the NDRC are elected by the CFA and another two ordinary members are
elected by the PASP, and the four members of the NDRC elect the vice chairman and the chairman
of each body. In case no agreement is reached, the Cyprus Bar Association appoints the vice
chairman and the chairman.
25. The Club sustained that the NDRC regulations are in line with the requirements of FIFA Circular letter
nº 1010, and that the NDRC is an independent and impartial tribunal that grants the right to a fair
hearing, and also its decisions can be challenged before the CAS. According to the Club, the right to
a contentious proceeding and to an equal treatment are also granted in the NDRC. The Club further
argued that the administrative fees that must be paid to the CFA together with the submission of
the claim do not impose any obstacle to a party’s right to access justice.
26. As to the substance of the dispute, the Club initially alleged that the Player sent the default letter on
4 April 2024, and not on 2 April 2024, and that its General Director immediately contacted the Player
on that day. In this regard, according to the Club, the Player terminated the employment relationship
on 19 April 2024 before the expiry of the 15-day deadline.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14602
27. The Club further argued that it is totally unaware of the Private Agreement. In this respect, “The Club
never signed that agreement, is not a party to that agreement and has never agreed to pay those amounts
mentioned to the player. This is a private agreement, as its title, signed between the Player and the Club’s
ex president. There is no reference in that agreement that the club was aware of it, that it agreed to it or
that it would pay the Player the amounts mentioned in that agreement”.
28. The Club submitted a statement signed by Mr Santis where he informed that the Player and the Club
were in negotiations to extend the employment relationship until the season 2025/2026, that there
was a small difference in the amounts that the Player wanted to receive and those the Club was
willing to pay, and that Mr Santis agreed to pay EUR 20,000 to the Player of his funds. “In order to
guarantee the player that these amounts would be paid, we agreed to sign an agreement, the one which
the player submitted as document 8 in his FIFA claim. The club was never a party in this agreement and
the amounts mentioned therein were never going to be paid by the club. This is exactly the reason why,
for these amounts, a third separate agreement was signed, titled Private Agreement, to which the club
was never a party”.
29. According to the Club, the Player had no right to terminate the contracts which had not yet entered
into force. The Club argued that “from the moment that those contracts were not in force at the time,
they could have not been terminated”.
c.
Claimant’s reply to the counterclaim
30. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player initially sustained that the Chamber is competent to hear
this dispute based on the current wording of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, as the NDRC of
the CFA has not been officially recognised by FIFA in accordance with the National Dispute
Resolution Chamber Recognition Principles.
31. The Player also argued that the Club did not prove that the NDRC complied with the requirements
of the FIFA Circular letter nº 1010. In this respect, the Player alleged that the NDRC of the CFA is not
an independent arbitral tribunal, as it is operated by the CFA exclusively, and the PASP was not
involved in the election of the members of the NDRC, and consequently the principle of equal
representation is not accomplished.
32. As to the substance of the matter, the Player insisted that it sent the default notice to the Club on 2
April 2024, as it was proved by the evidence submitted. Consequently, the termination on 19 April
2024 occurred after the 15-day deadline. In this respect, the fact that the Club read the default notice
only on 4 April 2024 cannot affect the Player’s entitlement to terminate the Contract under art. 14bis
of the Regulations.
33. The Player further argued that the Private Agreement contains the stamp of the Club, and that the
Player could, in good faith, understand that Mr Santis was acting on behalf of the Club. Also, that Mr
Santis is identified as the President in the Private Agreement, and that even him acknowledged in
his statement that the Private Agreement was concluded in order to secure the Player’s services.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14602
34. The Player reiterated his request for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
35. 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 10 May 2024 and submitted for decision on 22 August 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.
36. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), the DRC 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 a Cypriot club.
37. In this respect, the DRC noted that the Club contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies in
favour of the NDRC of the CFA, alleging that the latter is competent to deal with any dispute deriving
from the employment relationship based on Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract.
38. The Chamber also noted that the Player insisted on the competence of FIFA to adjudicate the
present claim, sustaining that the NDRC of the CFA is not an independent arbitration tribunal
guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and
clubs.
39. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 par. 1
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 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 National Dispute Resolution Chamber Standard Regulations, which
came into force on 1 January 2008.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14602
40. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in
favour of the NDRC of the CFA.
41. In doing so, the Chamber observed that on 22 January 2023 the Parties concluded the First Contract,
to which the Standard Employment Contract is attached. The DRC noted that the Standard
Employment Contract is provided by the CFA and must be registered with it. Furthermore, the DRC
observed that there are no provisions left to the agreement of the parties, but it is rather a contract
to which any player must adhere in order to be validly registered with the CFA.
42. The Chamber noted that, in accordance with Clause 13 of the Standard Employment Contract, “Any
employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved to the applicable regulations of
the CFA”.
43. The members of the Chamber further noted that, according to the First Agreement concluded
between the Parties on 23 January 2023, “(…) The parties wish to update the remuneration, bonus and
associated benefits that the Player will be entitled to receive, under the employment agreement, as well
as amend supplementary clauses”. In this respect, the DRC also noted that, according to Clause 11 of
the First Agreement, “All and every disputes the Parties explicitly and irrevocably agree that will be
introduced exclusively (“exclusive agreed jurisdiction”) before the competent authority and/or committee
and/or body of FIFA Football Tribunal. Any decision of the FIFA Football Tribunal might be appealed only
before the Court of Arbitration of Sports based in Lausanne, Switzerland by a Panel consisting of one (1)
member and using the English language. The Regulations of FIFA and Cyprus FA and the legislation of
Republic of Cyprus will be used by the hearing committees at all stages”.
44. Based on the foregoing, the members of the Chamber concluded that the First Agreement amended
the First Contract (and hence the Standard Employment Contract attached to it), and consequently
the Parties irrevocably and exclusively agreed that any disputes arising from the employment
relationship would be submitted to FIFA.
45. The Chamber wished to emphasise that, without prejudice to the foregoing, the same conclusion
would apply if one considers the contradictory provisions in the First Contract and in the First
Agreement. In this respect, the DRC determined that the jurisdiction clauses provided in the
Standard Employment Contract and the First Agreement did not exclusively establish the
competence of the NDRC of the CFA in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, as the
former provided the competence of the NDRC, and the latter the competence of FIFA.
46. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite for establishing the
competence of an NDRC was not met, and therefore, without the need to enter the analysis of any
further requirement, it established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to
deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present matter as
to the substance.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14602
47. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber established that the same reasoning ut supra applies
with regard to the Second Contract and the Second Agreement, concluded on 8 and 9 February
2024, respectively.
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 10 May 2024, the February 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 abovementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
51. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and
took note of the fact that the Parties strongly disputed the justice of the early termination of the
contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the
Respondent as per the contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
52. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the evidence
presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the
Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had in fact
been fulfilled.
53. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in accordance with
which, if a club unlawfully fails 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14602
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).
54. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed not having received his remuneration corresponding
to the monthly instalments of December 2023, January, February, March and April 2024, amounting
the total sum of 109,199.99 net. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant has provided
written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 2 April 2024, i.e., at least 15 days before
unilaterally terminating the contract on 19 April 2024.
55. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.
Nonetheless, the members of the Chamber observed that the Club did not dispute being in default,
but rather that the termination occurred before the expiry of the 15-day deadline.
56. Based on the foregoing, and especially considering that the evidence submitted by the Player
confirms that the default notice was sent on 2 April 2024, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant
had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
57. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to emphasise that the Player also had a just
cause under art. 14 par. 1 of the Regulations, in accordance with which “A contract may be terminated
by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of compensation or imposition of
sporting sanctions) where there is just cause”, as not only was the Club in default for more than four
monthly salaries, but also the Player undertook more lenient measures before terminating the
Contract, i.e., the termination was an ultima ratio measure.
58. Accordingly, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided to reject the counterclaim of the
Respondent.
ii. Consequences
59. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
60. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled with
the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to five salaries under the First Contract
and the First Agreement, amounting to EUR 110,000 net.
61. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 110,000 net,
corresponding to the December 2023, January, February, March and April 2024 salaries.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14602
62. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on
the outstanding amounts as from their due dates until the date of effective payment.
63. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated
that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be
calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute,
with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further
objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the 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.
64. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to
whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the Parties
had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the
event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation
clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
65. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out
in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
66. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the employment relationship
until its term.
67. In doing so, the Chamber initially noted that in accordance with Clause 2.1.2 of the First Agreement,
the Player was entitled to an extra allowance of EUR 1,000 per month as from August 2023 to May
2024, provided that “the [First Contract] is still active at the time the payments are due”. Based on the
fact that the employment relationship was terminated by the Player on 19 April 2024, the Chamber
concluded that he should not be entitled to the extra allowance for the month of May 2024, as the
employment relationship was not “active at the time the payments are due”.
68. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Respondent disputed the Player’s entitlement to the amounts
agreed under the Private Agreement, as well as the amounts corresponding to the Second Contract
and the Second Agreement, as they were not in force at the time of termination.
69. As to the Private Agreement concluded between the Player and Mr Santis on 8 February 2024, the
members of the Chamber unanimously decided to take it into account for the calculation of
compensation due by the Club to the Player, as such Private Agreement (i) was signed by Mr Santis
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14602
in his capacity of President of the Club; (ii) contains the stamp of the Club and (iii) Mr Santis himself
acknowledged in his statement that its purpose was to secure the Player’s services by paying an
additional sum to him to fulfil his salary expectations. The DRC also considered the fact that the
payment scheduled in the Private Agreement coincides with the one of the other contracts which,
in the Chamber’s opinion, was a clear indication that the amounts paid under this agreement were
additional salary to the Player.
70. The foregoing having been established, the members of the Chamber then turned their attention to
the assessment as to whether the Second Contract and the Second Agreement should be included
in the compensation payable to the Player. In this respect, the DRC initially noted that the First
Contract and the First Agreement would expire on 31 May 2024, whereas the Second Contract and
the Second Agreement would start on 1 June 2024, i.e., the following day. Furthermore, the Chamber
noted that, in spite of starting on such date, the Second Contract and the Second Agreement were
signed by the Parties on 8 and 9 February 2024, respectively, thus about four months before the
expiry of the First Contract and the First Agreement.
71. Most notably, the DRC firmly established that both mentioned contracts referred to the same
employment relationship and, in particular, that the Second Contract and the Second Agreement
effectively constitute a renewal of the First Contract and the First Agreement.
72. Accordingly, the Chamber emphasized that, in principle, any breach by the Club under the First
Contract/Agreement may equally produce its effects under the Second Contract/Agreement if not
remedied by the Club, because the employment relationship of the Parties was governed by both
the First Contract/Agreement and the Second Contract/Agreement. In this respect, the members of
the DRC wished to remark that a different interpretation would allow clubs to partially escape the
financial consequences of their contractual default every time an employment relationship is
renewed pending the outstanding remuneration in favour of their players.
73. Based on the foregoing considerations, the members of the Chamber concluded that the amount
of EUR 603,000 net serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract, corresponding to the residual value of the employment relationship as follows:
• First Contract: EUR 10,000 net;
• First Agreement: EUR 13,000 net;
• Second Contract: EUR 100,000 net;
• Second Agreement: EUR 460,000 net; and
• Private Agreement: EUR 20,000 net.
74. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment contract
with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been
enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC as well as art.
17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be
taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in
connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14602
75. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the contract.
76. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player
did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract, as a general rule,
the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely
terminated.
77. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the player compensation for breach of contract in
the amount of EUR 603,000 net as clarified above, as the residual value of the contract.
78. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber
in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation at the rate of
5% p.a. as of 20 April 2024 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration
periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4,
and 7 of the Regulations.
82. 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.
83. 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14602
d. Costs
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of
the Parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-14602
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Miguel
Ángel Guerrero Martín.
2.
The claim of Miguel Ángel Guerrero Martín is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Anorthosis Famagusta, must pay to Miguel Ángel Guerrero
Martín the following amount(s):
EUR 110,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 14,000 net as from 1 January 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 24,000 net as from 1 February 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 24,000 net as from 1 March 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 24,000 net as from 1 April 2024 until the date of effective
payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 24,000 net as from 20 April 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
EUR 603,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
per annum as from 20 April 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of Miguel Ángel Guerrero Martín are rejected.
5.
The counterclaim of Anorthosis Famagusta is rejected.
6.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
7.
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. Anorthosis Famagusta 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.
8.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of Miguel Ángel Guerrero Martín in
accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-14602
9.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-14602
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 19