Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14539
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Etzaz Muzafar Hussain
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA / France), Deputy Chairperson
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), member
CLAIMANT:
Etzaz Muzafar Hussain, Norway
Represented by Mathias T. Gebremichael
RESPONDENT:
Appollon Limassol, Cyprus
Represented by Alkis Papantoniou
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14539
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 19 January 2023, the Norwegian player Etzaz Muzafar Hussain (hereinafter, the Claimant or the
Player) and the Cypriot club Apollon Limassol (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) concluded an
employment contract valid as from 19 January 2023 until 30 June 2025.
2.
On 1 January 2024, the Player and the Club (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) concluded
a Termination Agreement in accordance with which:
A. The Club and the Player hereby terminate the “Agreement” and declare it null and void and of no effect
as from today.
B. The Club shall be responsible for the following payments due to the Player under this Termination
Agreement, as compensation due to the early termination of the contract of the Player and will arrange
to pay the total amount of €107.085 net (one hundred and seven thousand and eighty five euro) in 11
equal instalments as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
€9.735 payable at 15/1/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/2/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/3/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/4/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/5/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/6/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/7/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/8/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/9/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/10/2024
€9.735 payable at 15/11/2024
C. Both parties agree and acknowledge that this agreement constitutes the only and entire agreement
between the parties and that any previous agreement with regard to the employment of the PLAYER,
his remuneration or similar issues are hereby cancelled and rendered null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. The agreement shall be submitted to the relevant bodies of CFA for monitoring on the
financial criteria of CFA. In case of dispute both parties mutually agree that will be handled by the
relevant FIFA bodies for settlement.
D. In case of any breach of this Termination Agreement, namely in case the Club delays or fails to pay to
the Player the amount(s) indicated above (under letter / section B) in due time. In such a case, upon
condition and prior of a written notice to be sent by email, given a term of seven (7) days to pay the
outstanding amount(s) due, the Player has the right to bring this case before the competent FIFA body
claiming the remaining value of the settlement sum. The Parties confirm that this penalty was freely
negotiated and is reasonable and proportionate in the view damages that the player would suffer in
case of breach.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14539
3.
Also on 1 January 2024, the Parties concluded the so-called “Financial Agreement”, in accordance with
which:
A. Apollon and the player hereby agree that along with the “Termination Agreement” the present
“Financial Agreement” shall take effect and be valid.
B. In consideration of the termination, Apollon and the player agree and accept that APOLLON shall pay
(additionally to the payable amounts stipulated in the “Termination Agreement”) the total amount of
€176.000 net (one hundred seventy six thousand euro net) in total which will be paid as mentioned
below to the personal bank account of the Player, in 11 equal instalments as follows:
1. €16.000 payable on 15/01/2024
2. €16.000 payable on 15/02/2024
3. €16.000 payable on 15/03/2024
4. €16.000 payable on 15/04/2024
5. €16.000 payable on 15/05/2024
6. €16.000 payable on 15/06/2024
7. €16.000 payable on 15/07/2024
8. €16.000 payable on 15/08/2024
9. €16.000 payable on 15/09/2024
10. €16.000 payable on 15/10/2024
11. €16.000 payable on 15/11/2024
C. Both parties agree and aclnowledge that this agreement along with the “Termination Agreement”
constitute the only and entire agreements between the parties and that any previous agreements with
regard to the employment of the Player, his remuneration or similar issues are hereby cancelled and
rendered null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The agreement shall be submitted to the relevant
bodies of CFA for monitoring on the financial criteria of CFA. In case of dispute both parties mutually
agree that it will be handled by the relevant FIFA bodies for settlement.
D. In case of any breach of this Financial Agreement, namely in case the Club delays or fails to pay to the
Player the amounts indicated above (under letter / section B) in due time. In such a case, upon condition
and prior of a written notice sent by email, giving the term of seven (7) days to pay the outstanding
amount(s) due, the Player has the right to bring this case before the competent FIFA body claiming the
remaining value of the settlement sum. The Parties confirm that his penalty was freely negotiated and
is reasonable and proportionate in the view of the damages that the player would suffer in case of
breach.
4.
On 19 January 2024, the Player contacted the Club via WhatsApp requesting the payment of
EUR 9,735 and EUR 16,000, corresponding to the January 2024 instalments of the Termination
Agreement and the Financial Agreement, respectively (hereinafter, jointly referred to as the
Agreements).
5.
On 20 February 2024, the Player put the Club in default via WhatsApp, requesting the payment of
the February 2024 instalments as per the Agreements.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14539
6.
The Player insisted on his request via WhatsApp on 22, 23, 28 and 29 February 2024.
7.
On 25 February 2024, the Player concluded an employment contract with the Norwegian club Odds
Ballklubb (hereinafter, Odds), valid as from 25 February 2024 until 31 December 2025. According to
Clause 4 of this new contract, the Player is entitled to receive a monthly salary of NOK 75,000 per
month.
8.
On 4 March 2024, the Player insisted on the February 2024 instalments, and the Club asked if he
could wait until Friday, to which the Player agreed.
9.
On 12 March 2024, the Club asked the Player to wait until the next day to find a solution, to which
the latter also agreed.
10. On 18 March 2024, the Player put the Club in default via WhatsApp, requesting payment of the
February and March 2024 instalments as per the Agreements. The Player also sent the default notice
via email, informing that the total sum due amounted to EUR 51,470, and informed the Club that in
case the payment was not made on time, the Player would claim the total amount agreed on both
Agreements.
11. On 25, 26 and 27 March 2024, the Player inquired about the payments via WhatsApp.
12. On 2 April 2024, the Player sent another WhatsApp to the Club informing that he had no other option
but to proceed lodging the relevant claim before FIFA, and asking the Club whether it had any further
comments.
13. On 3 April 2024, the Club paid EUR 9,735 to the Player.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 2 May 2024, the Player 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
15. According to the Player, the Club did not pay the February, March and April 2024 instalments in full,
and hence he is entitled to claim the remaining value of the Agreements as per the acceleration
clause provided in both contracts.
16. The Player requested the following relief:
In light of the above, the Claimant request the DRC to rule as follows:
a. The Club is ordered to pay the due payable amounts to the Player in accordance with the Termination
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14539
Agreement and the Financial Agreement, which gives a total of: sixty-seven thousand four hundred and
seventy euros (EUR 67,470) for February, March and April 2024.
b. The Club is ordered to pay the remaining value of the owed amounts in Termination Agreement and
the Financial Agreement in full to the Player in accordance with clause D in both the Termination
Agreement and the Financial Agreement, which gives a total of: one hundred and eighty thousand one
hundred and forty-five euros (EUR 180,145) for May, June, July, August, September, October and
November 2024.
c. Apollon Football LTD is ordered to pay all the Player’s costs and expenses related to the preparation
and conduct of the proceedings before the DRC, which is estimated to amount CHF 4,000.
b. Position of the Respondent
17. In its reply, the Club initially pointed out that it completed the payment of EUR 35,470 to the Player
and that, due to financial difficulties, it has delayed the payment of the next instalments.
18. According to the Club, the amounts agreed on the Agreements “were agreed as compensation for the
damages that the Claimant would incur due to the early termination of the employment relationship”. In
this respect, the Club argued that the Player managed to mitigate his damages by signing a new
employment contract with Odds, and consequently his damages are not equal to EUR 283,085, but
rather considerably less. Accordingly, the compensation claimed by the Player should be mitigated
by the amount that the Player will receive as per his new contract as from 26 February 2024 until 30
June 2025.
19. The Club, referring to art. 17 of the Regulations and to the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration
for Sport (CAS), argued that the employee has the duty to mitigate his damages in case of a breach
of contract by the employer.
20. According to the Club, “Derogating from the stipulations of article 17 RSTP in cases of termination
agreements, creates a negative precedent in employment relationships, which contradicts the principle of
contractual stability. Leaving termination agreements outside the scope of art. 17 RSTP practically
encourages clubs to unilaterally terminate their employment contracts in order to benefit from future
mitigation of the player’s damages, instead of proceeding to mutually agreed termination agreements
with their players”.
21. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that the acceleration clause was not validly activated by the Player, as
the default notice sent by him did not specify the amounts that were payable, the contractual
agreements from where they arose, nor the exact dates where the amounts became due.
Furthermore, the Club sustained that it made a payment of EUR 9,735 before the Player lodged the
present claim, which altered the due amount and, as a result, the Player should have sent a new
default notice in order to active the acceleration clause.
22. Subsidiarily, the Club considered that the acceleration clause constituted an excessive and
unreasonable penalty and should thus be invalid. In this respect, the Club argued that the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14539
accelerated payment requested by the Player as a penalty (i.e., EUR 180,145) is clearly
disproportionate to the amount which was not duly paid by the Club (i.e., EUR 67,470), being 3 times
higher (267%) in comparison to the defaulted amount.
23. The Club requested the following relief:
24. In view of all the factual and legal arguments presented in the present Response, the Respondent requests
by Your Respectable Chamber:
I. Primary Requests
1. To reject the Claim of the Claimant for the payment of the total amount of EUR 247,614.
2. To request by the FIFA Player Status Department and/or the FIFA General Secretariat and the
Claimant to produce the contract signed between the Claimant and the Norwegian Club, ODDS BK,
in order to be aware of the exact amount of damages mitigated by the Claimant after the
termination of the employment relationship;
3. To provide us with the capacity to supplement our present Response, after we receive the contract
of the Claimant with the New Club, by stating the exact amount that we request to be deduced from
the compensation requested by the Claimant;
4. To determine that the amount requested by the Claimant through his claim shall be mitigated by
the payments he is to receive by the New Club for the period corresponding to the remaining term
of the terminated contract with the Club (i.e., from the date of signature of the contract with the
New Club until 30.06.2025).
II.
Subsidiary Requests
In case Your Chamber finds that the total amount requested by the Claimant through his claim shall
not be mitigated, or in the event that Your Chamber finds that the accelerated debt of EUR 180,145
shall not be mitigated.
1. To reject the Claim of the Claimant for the payment of the amount of EUR 180,145 as a penalty of
acceleration of debt, because it is an excessive and unreasonable penalty.
2. To determine that the penalty of EUR 180,145 shall not be paid to the Claimant at all. Subsidiarily,
to adapt the said amount of penalty in order to be reasonable and proportionate to the
circumstances of the case at hand.
c.
Replica of the Claimant
25. In his replica, the Player initially argued that the financial terms of the termination of the
employment relationship where freely negotiated by the Parties. In this respect, the Player sustained
that the agreed compensation was accepted by both Parties as reasonable and proportionate in
light of the damages the Player would suffer, without consideration and without an agreed condition
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14539
that the compensation should only apply if the Player did not find a new club. Accordingly, the Club
is liable to the agreed consequences of not upholding their contractual obligations.
26. The Player sustained that the compensation is based on specific contractual commitments, and not
on a general obligation to pay damages where mitigation might apply. Accordingly, the Agreements
were intended to provide the Player with financial security irrespective of future employment
opportunities.
27. The Player referred to different decisions of the Chamber which allegedly demonstrate that the
mitigation principles that the Club argued are inapplicable to freely negotiated settlements and/or
termination agreements.
28. The Player also argued that the Club did not submit any evidence as to their financial situation or
any explanation as to the delay in the amounts payable to him.
29. The Player sustained that the acceleration clause provided in both Agreements was validly activated,
as it was proven that, on 18 March 2024, the Player sent a default letter via email referring to the
outstanding amounts that were due at that time. Also, that the Player informed in the default notice
about his further steps in case the payment was not made, namely, the request for the overall
amount agreed. Furthermore, the Player sustained that he put the Club in default in multiple
occasions.
30. As to the payment made by the Club after lodging the present claim, the Player alleged that it was
made after the agreed payment date, and did not cover the full amount due.
31. According to the Player, by the time of lodging his replica, additional payment obligations arose
under the Agreements.
32. The Player amended his request for relief as follows:
In light of the response letter received from the Club (dated 05/06/2024) through the FIFA Legal Portal,
and in light of the above presented arguments on behalf of the Claimant, the Claimant request the DRC
to rule as follows:
a. The Player requests the Club’s request in clause 31 (a), (b) and (c) in their response letter (dated
05/06/2024) and the requests under nr. 1-4 under “C. Request of the Respondent” – “Preliminary
Request”, to be dismissed / rejected by the DRC.
b. The Club is ordered to pay the due payable amounts to the Player in accordance with the Termination
Agreement and the Financial Agreement, which gives a total of: Ninety-three thousand two hundred
and five euros (EUR 93,205) for February, March, April and May 2024.
c. The Club is ordered to pay the remaining value of the settlement sums in the Termination Agreement
and the Financial Agreement in full to the Player in accordance with clause D in both the Termination
Agreement and the Financial Agreement, which gives a total of: One hundred and fifty-four thousand
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14539
four hundred and ten euros (EUR 154,410) for June, July, August, September, October and November
2024.
d. The Club is ordered to pay 5% interest p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from its due dates until the
date of effective payment.
e. A warning or a reprimand (or both), in accordance with Art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) and b), shall be imposed
on the Club, by the DRC.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
33. In its duplica, the Respondent insisted that the Parties agreed that the compensation shall in any
case be proportionate to the damages suffered by the Player. In this respect, the Parties did not
explicitly state that the amounts would be final and would not be mitigated in case the Player would
manage to find a new employment contract. According to the Club, the Player would otherwise
receive double salaries from 26 February 2024 until 30 June 2025, which would result in an unjust
enrichment, and would also exceed the real damages incurred by him for the termination of the
employment relationship.
34. The Club argued that the jurisprudence cited by the Player is not similar to the present case, and
therefore cannot be considered, as it contains different facts and legal arguments.
35. The Club argued that that the Player did not dispute that the acceleration clause constituted an
unreasonable and excessive penalty, and consequently considered that the Player accepted these
arguments.
36. The Club also alleged that it had no access and could not download Appendix 5 of the claim,
consisting of a WhatsApp conversation provided by the Player and, consequently, he did not
discharge his burden of proof that several notices were delivered to the Club.
37. The Club reiterated that the Player did not validly activate the acceleration clause provided in the
Agreements.
38. The Club also argued that the Player’s request on interest and sanctions under art. 12bis of the
Regulations should be rejected, as it was presented for the first time in his replica and constitutes
an unacceptable late amendment of his requests. Furthermore, according to the Club art. 12bis of
the Regulations should not apply in the present case, which “concerns a dispute in relation to a
termination agreement and not a dispute in relation to employment contracts or transfer contract. This
means that the Club does not have overdue payables towards the Player regarding services provided by
the Player or the Club”. The Club further added that, in any case, the Player did not fulfil the
procedural requirements of art. 12bis, and thus it should not apply in the present case.
39. The Club reiterated the request for relief of his reply to the claim.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14539
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber or the 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 2 May 2024 and submitted for decision on
8 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.
41. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Norwegian player and a Cypriot club.
42. 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 2 May 2024, the February 2024 edition of said regulations (hereinafter,
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Admissibility
43. The Chamber noted that in its duplica, the Club argued that Appendix 5 of the Player’s claim,
consisting of a WhatsApp conversation between the Parties, should be inadmissible as it could not
be downloaded in the Legal Portal.
44. In this respect, the Chamber wished to point out that the Club only argued this in its duplica despite
that it could have raised such argument in the reply to the claim, where it appears that there were
no issues. Nevertheless, the Chamber observed that said Appendix 5 of the claim was perfectly
visible and could be downloaded with no further issues.
45. Based on the foregoing, and also considering that this concrete evidence is not at all decisive for the
assessment of the present dispute, as it only evidenced some of the several default notices from
the Player as well as the payment of EUR 9,735 made by the Club on 3 April 2024 (also submitted by
the Club itself), the Chamber decided to reject the inadmissibility of said evidence.
c.
Burden of proof
46. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14539
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).
d. Merits of the dispute
47. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into
the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the abovementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Chamber
emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
48. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and
took note of the fact that this is a claim of a player against a club concerning outstanding amounts
arising from the Termination Agreement and the Financial Agreement concluded between the
Parties on 1 January 2024.
49. The Chamber noted that, according to the Player, the Club had not paid EUR 67,470 when he lodged
the claim at hand, corresponding to the monthly instalment of February 2024 as per the Financial
Agreement and the monthly instalments of March and April 2024 as per both the Termination and
the Financial Agreements. Furthermore, the Chamber also observed that, in his replica, the Player
argued that the monthly instalment of May 2024 had also become due. Accordingly, the Chamber
noted that the Player claimed the total amount of EUR 247,615, i.e., EUR 93,205 as outstanding
amount and EUR 154,410 after having triggered the acceleration clauses provided in the
Agreements.
50. The Chamber then observed that, on its part, the Club did not dispute being in default with the
Player, and that it only paid EUR 35,470, corresponding to the January 2024 instalments under both
Agreements and the February 2024 instalment as per the Termination Agreement. Despite the
foregoing, the Chamber also noted that, according to the Club, the overall amount should be
mitigated after the Player found a new employment contract with Odds, as allegedly this was the
intention of the Parties when entering into both Agreements. Subsidiarily, the Club argued that the
Player did not validly activate the acceleration clause and, subsidiarily, that the acceleration clause
constituted an excessive and unreasonable penalty that should thus be invalid.
51. On account of the above contradictory allegations, the Chamber acknowledged that its task in the
present dispute was to address the following questions:
I.
Was the acceleration clause validly activated by the Player?
II.
In such a case, is the agreed compensation subject to mitigation?
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14539
III.
If not, does the agreed compensation constitute an excessive penalty?
***
I.
Was the acceleration clause validly activated by the Player?
52. For the assessment of this first question, the Chamber turned its attention to the provisions of the
Agreements, and noted the following:
• According to the Termination Agreement, the Club undertook to pay to the Player EUR 9,735
net on a monthly basis, on the 15th day of each month as from January until November 2024.
• On the other hand, as per the Financial Agreement, the Club also undertook to pay to the Player
and additional amount of EUR 16,000 net per month on the 15 th day of each month as from
January until November 2024.
• Based on Clause D of both the Termination Agreement and the Financial Agreement:
“In case of any breach of this Financial Agreement, namely in case the Club delays or fails to pay to
the Player the amounts indicated above (under letter / section B) in due time. In such a case, upon
condition and prior of a written notice sent by email, giving the term of seven (7) days to pay the
outstanding amount(s) due, the Player has the right to bring this case before the competent FIFA body
claiming the remaining value of the settlement sum. The Parties confirm that his penalty was freely
negotiated and is reasonable and proportionate in the view of the damages that the player would
suffer in case of breach”.
53. The Chamber observed that, based in the above provisions, the Player would be entitled to claim
the overall amount agreed provided that (i) the Club defaulted any of the amounts agreed under
the Termination Agreement and/or the Financial Agreement and that (ii) the Player put the Club in
default, via email, granting seven days to comply with its obligations.
54. With the above in mind, the Chamber then referred to the evidence submitted by the Parties, and
observed the following:
• On 18 March 2024, the Player put the Club in default, via email, requesting the payment of EUR
51,750, corresponding to the February and March 2024 instalments as per both Agreements
(EUR 25,735), which fell due on 15 February and 15 March 2024, respectively.
• On 3 April 2024, the Club paid EUR 9,735, corresponding to the February 2024 instalment as per
the Termination Agreement. Accordingly, the amount of EUR 42,015 remained outstanding.
• On 2 May 2024, the Player lodged the claim at hand before FIFA, i.e., more than 7 days after
putting the Club in default.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14539
55. On account of the foregoing sequence of events, the Chamber unanimously concluded that the
Player clearly and validly activated the acceleration clause provided in the two Agreements and,
consequently, the Chamber determined that, in accordance with the legal principal of pacta sunt
servanda, such acceleration clause shall be enforced.
56. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber considered that the argumentation of the Club in the
sense that the Player should have sent another default notice after it paid EUR 9,735 on 3 April 2024
shall be rejected. The Chamber determined that the mentioned payment did not cure the default of
the Club, as it did not cover the full payment due. Furthermore, the Chamber wished to point out
that the Player tried on several occasions to avoid lodging the present claim, as it can be seen from
the evidence provided. Likewise, the Chamber stressed that it was on the Club to avoid the
acceleration of the amounts agreed, and the Player only decided to claim them after having granted
countless opportunities to the Club to comply with its contractual obligations, to no avail.
II.
In such a case, is the agreed compensation subject to mitigation?
57. The above having been established, the Chamber moved to the Club’s allegation in the sense that,
based on art. 17 of the Regulations and also on the employee’s duty to mitigate his damages, the
compensation provided in the Agreements should be mitigated with the Player’s new employment
contract with Odds.
58. Accordingly, the Chamber turned its attention to Clause D of the Agreements, and observed that
both of them provided the following:
“In case of any breach (…) the Player has the right to bring this case before the competent FIFA body
claiming the remaining value of the settlement sum. The Parties confirm that this penalty was freely
negotiated and is reasonable and proportionate in the view of the damages that the player would suffer
in case of breach”.
59. The Chamber unanimously considered that these provisions granted the Player the possibility to
claim the overall amount agreed in case of a breach on the Club’s side, with no further conditions.
Based on the foregoing, the Chamber considered that in case the Parties intended to agree upon
any type of conditions and/or mitigation of the amounts established, they should have done so in
writing. Consequently, and in the absence of any written guidance to this extent, the Chamber
decided that the position of the Club could not be upheld.
60. Furthermore, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to point out that this is not a
case of breach of contract without just cause, scenario where the mitigation might be applicable in
case the player signs a new employment contract, but rather a contractual stipulation freely entered
into, where the Parties agreed on the consequences that a default or breach of the payment
scheduled would entail.
61. In this respect, and in application of the party autonomy principle, which in essence means that
parties are free to determine the terms that would regulate their relationship, it was up to the Parties
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14539
to limit those consequences if they wished to do so. Along these lines, the Chamber recalled that,
based on the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, unless the terms of a contract are
impossible, unlawful or immoral, parties are bound to observe the clauses subscribed by them.
62. Based on all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber decided to reject the application of any
mitigation on the amounts payable by the Club to the Player.
III. If not, does the agreed compensation constitute an excessive penalty?
63. The Chamber lastly went to assess the Club’s allegation with regard to the alleged fact that the
acceleration clause constituted an excessive and unreasonable penalty, and should therefore be
invalid.
64. The Chamber wished to point out that acceleration clauses are often used in termination
agreements, where the parties agree that should the club fail to pay an instalment on the agreed
date, the player can accelerate all due instalments and request the totality of the amount.
65. The Chamber stressed that acceleration clauses also derive from the principle of autonomy, and
hence the Parties were free to determine the terms that would regulate the conditions of the
termination of their employment relationship. In casu, those conditions entitled the Player to
activate an acceleration clause in order to claim the overall amount agreed.
66. Based on the foregoing, and despite the wording of the acceleration clause, the Chamber
considered that, by claiming it, the Player is only requesting the performance of the Agreements
rather than a penalty on top of the agreed amounts. Accordingly, the Chamber unanimously
determined that an acceleration clause cannot be equated to a penalty clause, only scenario in
which the Chamber would be allowed to reduce it.
67. On account of all the foregoing considerations, the Chamber concluded that the Player shall be
awarded both the outstanding and the accelerated amounts claimed.
68. 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. as
from their due dates with regard to the outstanding amounts, and as from the activation of the
acceleration clause as to the accelerated amounts.
69. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber decided to reject the Club’s allegation in the sense that
no interest should be awarded as the Player only requested it in his replica. In this respect, the
Chamber determined that the Club was also invited to provide his position on the replica of the
Player and, consequently, his right to be heard was fully respected.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14539
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
e. Costs
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the Parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14539
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Etzaz Muzafar Hussain, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Apollon Limassol, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
EUR 247,615 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 16,000 as from 16 February 2024 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 25,735 as from 16 March 2024 until the date of effective
payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 205,880 as from 26 March 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-14539
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. 17