Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13881
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 20 May 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Kevin
Jansen
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Angela COLLINS (Australia), Member
Laurel VAURASI (Fiji), Member
CLAIMANT:
Kevin Jansen, the Netherlands
Represented by De VVCS
RESPONDENT:
FC Honka, Finland
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13881
I. Facts of the case
The first employment contract and the registration of the Player
1.
On 10 December 2021, the Dutch player Kevin Jansen (hereinafter: Player or Claimant) and
the Finnish club FC Honka (hereinafter: Club, FC Honka or Respondent) entered into an
employment contract valid from 1 January 2022 until 15 November 2023 (hereinafter: First
Contract).
2.
The parties to the First Contract were identified as follows:
•
•
•
Player: Kevin Jansen
Club: FC Honka
Representative of the Club: Esport Honka Ltda.
o Business ID: 2682273-1
o Address: Koivu-Mankkaantie 5, 02200 Espoo Finland
o Telephone: +35405550366
o Email address: [email protected]
o Contact person: Mr. Hexi Arteva
3.
The First Contract was signed by Mr Färin Ainetdin on behalf of the Club.
4.
Pursuant to the Appendix of the First Contract, the Player would be entitled to, inter alia, the
following amounts:
•
•
5.
EUR 6,000 as monthly salary from 1 January until 31 December 2022; and
EUR 6,500 as monthly salary from 1 January until 15 November 2023.
In accordance with the information retrieved from the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS):
•
On 31 January 2022, FC Honka (TMS ID: 479238) entered a transfer instruction to engage
the Player permanently;
•
Also on 31 January 2022, the Finnish FA (SPL) requested the Player’s International
Transfer Certificate (ITC), which was delivered on the same date; and
•
On 1 February 2022, the Player was registered with the Club.
The second employment contract
6.
On 19 July 2023, the Player and the Club signed a second employment contract valid from 16
November 2023 until 15 November 2025 (hereinafter: Second Contract).
7.
The parties to the Second Contract were identified as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13881
•
•
•
Player: Kevin Jansen
Club: FC Honka
Representative of the Club: Hexi Arteva
o Business ID: 2682273-1
o Address: Koivu-Mankkaantie 5, 02200 Espoo Finland
o Telephone: +358405550366
o Email address: [email protected]
o Contact person: Hexi Arteva
8.
The signature of the Club representative added to the Second Contract was the same as in the
First Contract.
9.
Pursuant to the Appendix of the Second Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player inter
alia the following amounts:
•
•
EUR 6,900 as monthly salary from 16 November 2023 until 15 November 2024; and
EUR 7,200 as monthly salary from 16 November 2024 until 15 November 2025.
The termination of the Second Contract and its aftermath
10. On 21 November 2023, the Player received a “Notice of Termination” of the Second Contract
(hereinafter: Termination Notice), stating as follows:
“Esport Honka Oy (Finnish business ID2682273-1) has been declared bankrupt on 21
November 2023 by decision of the District Court of Länsi-Uusimaain the matter K 23/2725.
The District Court has appointed attorney Robert Peldán from Borenius Attorneys Ltd as the
estate administrator. Due to the bankruptcy, your employment relationship is terminated
pursuant to Chapter 7 Section 8 of the Employment Contracts Act (55/2001) following a notice
period of 14 days. The last day of your employment is Tuesday 5 December 2023. If your
employment has been terminated earlier than the above-mentioned date, or if the
employment relationship for any other reason terminates earlier than the above-mentioned
date, this notice does not affect the earlier termination.
11. On 1 January 2024, the Player entered into a new employment contract with the Finnish club
FC Inter Turku Oy (hereinafter: Turku), valid until 15 November 2024. Accordingly, the Player
would be entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 5,100.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 1 March 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. The following is a brief
summary of the parties’ respective positions.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13881
a. Claim of the Player
13. In his claim, the Player explained that, following the signature of the Second Contract, the Club
was declared bankrupt and the employment relationship terminated without just cause. He
claimed having received his remuneration until 5 December 2023 (i.e., date of issuance of the
Termination Notice plus 14 days).
14. Nevertheless, the Player now requests to be awarded compensation for breach of contract
amounting to the residual value of the Second Contract, accounting for any amounts that may
be mitigated pursuant to his subsequent employment with Turku, to be calculated as follows:
“1. Contract FC HONKA (FIN)
• Term:
o 16 November 2023 -15 November 2025
•
Salary:
o 16 November 2023 until 15 November 2024: 6.900 EUR
o 16 November 2024 until 15 November 2025: 7.200 EUR
•
Paid until 5 December 2023
2. Compensation for breach of contract FC HONKA
• 6-31 December 2023: 5.787,10 EUR (A)
• 1 January 2024-15 November 2024: 72.450 EUR (B)
• 16 November 2024-15 November 2025: 86.500 EUR (C)
3. New Contract FC INTER TURKU (FIN)
• 1 January 2024 - 15 November 2024: 53.550 EUR (D)
4. Difference (B) - (D) = 18.900 EUR (E)
5. Claim (A)+ (C) + (E): 111.187,10 EUR”
15. The Player’s request for relief was the following:
“As a consequence of all of the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to order the Club
to pay him the following amount based on the employment contract signed between the
parties:
The amount of EUR 111.187,10 EUR, plus 5% interest as from the due dates until the date of
effective payment”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13881
b. Reply of FC Honka
16. On 1 March 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Player’s claim and
invited the Club to provide its position by no later than 21 March 2024.
17. On 20 March 2024, the Club replied to the claim as follows, quoted verbatim:
“1. The first player contract and its parties
[The Player] has signed a player contract with Esport Honka ltd on 10 December 2021. The
player contract period has been 1.1.2022 -15.11.2023. On behalf of sport Honka ltd, the
contract has been signed by Mr Färid Aineetdin.
In this regard, I refer to Enclosure 3 pages 1 and 12
Esport Honka ltd's Business ID is 2682273-1. FC Honka Ry's business ID is 0101279-1. These
are different legal entities.
In this case [the Player] has the wrong defendant.
The demand should already be rejected on this basis.
2. Second Player Contract
Esport Honka ltd and [the Player] have signed a second player contract on 19 July 2023. Its
validity date has been 16.11.2023 -15.11.2025.
In this regard, I refer to enclosure 4.
The party to the player contract is Esport Honka ltd, as indicated by Business ID 2682273-1.
It is uncontested that Esport Honka ltd has signed two consecutive player contracts with [the
Player]. It is undisputed that FC Honka ry has never been in a contractual relationship with
Jansen.
3. Termination of the second player contract
Esport Honka ltd has been declared bankrupt on 2 November 2023.
The decision to declare bankruptcy has been made by the District Court of Western Uusimaa.
The diari number of the bankruptcy case is K 23/2725.
Due to the bankruptcy, [the Player]’s player contract has terminated 21.11.2023 pursuant
to Chapter 7 section 8 of the Employer contract Act (55/2001) by bankruptcy Esteta of Esport
Honka ltd.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13881
In this regard, I refer to enclosure 5.
Honka ry. has not terminated [the Player]'s player contract and could not have done so
because FC Honka ry has not been a party to the player contract.
4. Football activities of Honka ry
Esport Honka ltd has been practicing football at the top level in the Veikkausleague.
Honka ry conducts football activities at the third-highest level.
Honka ry has in no way participated in or continued the football activities at the top level.
5. National legislation
All employment contracts are subject to the Employment Contracts Act in Finland. This is
mandatory legislation and cannot be derogated from by agreement between the parties. Any
provision that deviates from the Employment Contracts Act is null and void directly due to
the provision of the Act.
In the agreement between Jansen and Esport Honka Ltd, it has been agreed in section 18 that
the employment contract can only be terminated according to the Employment Contracts
Act. According to section 20 of the Player Agreement, the contractual relationship between
Jansen and Esport Honka ltd is governed by Finnish law and all disputes related to the
contractual relationship are dealt with in the district court of the club's domicile.
[The Player] is contractually bound by clauses 18 and 20 of the Player Agreement and is
bound by them as a contractual condition.
In this case, Esport Honka Ltd has been declared bankrupt by the district court.
The Bankruptcy Administration has terminated the Jansen Agreement in accordance with the
Employment Contracts Act.
Concussion legislation is a mandatory right in Finland. The parties cannot agree otherwise in
violation of the Bankruptcy Act.
In this case, the bankruptcy estate of Jansen and Esport Honka ltd and Esport Honka ltd
bankruptcy estate is bound by the Finnish Employment Contracts Act and bankruptcy
legislation. Both are compelling justice.
[The Player]'s player contract has been terminated in accordance with the Employment
Contracts Act and the Bankruptcy Act and on the basis of them Jansen has no right to claim
any compensation from even Esport Honka ltd, let alone FC Honka ry.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13881
The claim must be dismissed directly on the basis of national law.
It is clear that in these circumstances FC Honka ry is obliged to comply with Finnish law.
Under the player agreement, [the Player] is also obliged to comply with Finnish law. The
claim that FC Honka is obliged to comply with FIFA RSTP instead of mandatory legislation is
not relevant, as Jansen has committed to comply with Finnish law in the contract itself. Jansen
is bound by a condition agreed in the player agreement.
[The Player]'s claim that the bankruptcy estate terminated Jansen's player contract without
cause is unfounded. The reason for the termination of Jansen’s player contract is based on
current legislation.
6. Amount of claim
FC Honka ry denies the claim quantitatively.
The requirement is not based on Finnish legislation.
[The Player] has received the salary agreed in the player contract on 10 December 2021 until
5 December.
The difference in earnings between the Player Agreement 10.12.2021 (encl. 4) (Esport Honka
ltd) and the Player Agreement FC inter (encl 6) is 18,900 euros.
Under Finnish labour law, [the Player] cannot claim damages until the amount of the
damage is known. No one knows what Jansen's earnings are in 15.11.2024-15.11.2025.
[The Player]'s claim is premature and cannot even be investigated under the Finnish
Employment Contracts Act.
[The Player] is committed in the player agreement to comply with Finnish law in contractual
matters. The demand must be rejected.
7. Summary
The claim must be rejected because
- There has been no contractual relationship between [the Player] and Fc Honka ry and FC
Honka ry is not committed to any of Jansen.
- Termination of the employment contract has taken place according to the Employment
Contracts Act
- The termination of the employment contract has taken place according to the bankruptcy
legislation
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13881
- Both of the above laws are mandatory and cannot be derogated from by agreement.
- [The Player]'s claim is premature and cannot be investigated under Finnish law until the
damage has occurred.
- [The Player] is committed to complying with Finnish legislation in the player agreement.
- FC Honka ry is committed to complying with Finnish law and [the Player] is committed to
doing so through a player agreement”.
18. It is to be noted that despite referring to some exhibits in its reply, the Club did not submit any
attachments to its reply.
19. On 28 March 2024, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to upload the exhibits
mentioned in its reply brief by no later than 2 April 2024, under penalty of such references
being disregarded.
20. On 4 April 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged that the Club had failed to submit
any additional documentation despite being invited to do so. In addition, the FIFA general
secretariat (i) informed the parties that the submission phase of the matter at hand was closed
(cf. art. 23, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal); and (ii) invited the
Player to comment on the Club’s allegations as to its standing to be sued / the occurrence of
sporting succession.
c. Additional comments of the Player
21. On 8 April 2024, the Player filed his additional comments and stated inter alia as follows, quoted
verbatim:
“3. It may be evident that the Player cannot be held responsible for having to differentiate
between different legal structures of one and the same club, which has also already been
confirmed by CAS in CAS 2009/A/1880 FC Sion v. FIFA & Al-Ahly Sporting Club. The player in
good faith filed a claim against FC Honka which is the name of the entity known in the football
community and has been duly registered as such in FIFA TMS.
4. In this regard, the best example that the argumentation of FC Honka ry is illogical and
contradictory is that FIFA sent the claim of the Player to FC Honka as the football club known
in the Finnish football structures and that FC Honka ry replied to this request of FIFA. If FC
Honka ry would not consider itself to be one and the same club as FC Honka, why would it
reply to the letter sent by FIFA? As mentioned, this would be contradictory and illogical and
its it therefore clear that FC Honka ry considers itself to be one and the same club.
5.In this sense, and referring to the letter of FIFA, there is in this case also no traditional
'sporting succession' element as per the jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC or FIFA Disciplinary
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13881
Committee jurisprudence; this is mainly a case of a club that may have different legal entities
(like clubs have in other parts of the world) that existed alongside each other but which are
known together as FC Honka within the wider football community. The club is still affiliated
to the Finnish FA and they are actively partaking in competitions, and therefore a decision
can be passed by the FIFA DRC.
6. However, for the sake of good order, it is also impossible for the Player to counter the
arguments of the Club without being in possession of the relevant document, which - as we
understand - was filed late by the Club. As such, the Club has not even provided any
documentary evidence to support their arguments, so they have in any case failed to comply
with their burden of proof as per the FIFA Procedural Rules.
[...]
8. Furthermore, an insolvency of bankruptcy of a club does not prevent the FIFA DRC from
passing a decision in the matter at stake. Whereas it may be relevant for the enforcement of
a possible decision by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, it does in fact not preclude the FIFA
DRC from assessing the merits of this case, in particular on the assessment whether there
was just cause or not to terminate the contract.
[...]
9. Finally, FC Honka is invoking Finnish law in this dispute but also this point cannot succeed.
Indeed, is the established jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC that the FIFA RSTP prevail [...]
10. Based on the above, Finnish law is not applicable to this dispute and therefore entirely
irrelevant for the assessment of this matter.
11. Finally, for the sake of completeness, also for this argument the club has failed to provide
the relevant documentary evidence, reason for which the argument should be dismissed from
the outset”.
d. Information provided by the SPL
22. Upon request by the FIFA general secretariat, the SPL stated as follows as to affiliation of the
Club and the contractual relationship with the Player:
“Player Kevin Jansen (08.04.1992, FIFA ID 16WK595) had a professional employment contract
with company Esport Honka Oy (Finnish Business ID 2682273-1). However, the company has
gone bankrupt, and the contract was terminated. The team the player played for is not
existing anymore, as the company went bankrupt.
Club FC Honka ry (Finnish Business ID 0101279-1) with FIFA club ID 1064T9E is a different
legal entity and it has teams in men, women, boys, and girls and also in futsal. Women’s first
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13881
team participates in 1st tier and men’s team in 4th tier. FC Honka ry is registered member
club of the Football Association of Finland.
Esport Honka Oy (2682273-1) and FC Honka ry (0101279-1) are two different legal entities,
and FC Honka ry is not responsible for debt of any other legal entities.
Esport Honka Oy had a contractual relationship with a registered member club FC Honka ry,
where it had the right to use the logo and the name of FC Honka in sporting matters. In
Finland the company can’t operate a football team on its’ own, it must have a contractual
relationship with a registered member club. This kind of contractual relationship between
the company and registered member football club is also recognized for example in UEFA
Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations (Edition 2023), but still, it won’t
transfer the employment related responsibilities to other legal entities. The company Esport
Honka Oy is solely responsible for employment related matters, for example paying the
salaries.
If there are any demands related to the agreements signed with Esport Honka Oy (26822731), Esport Honka Oy is the only entity which should be involved in the claim.
Case FPSD-13881 is a dispute between the player and Esport Honka Oy (Finnish Business ID
2682273-1), not between the player and FC Honka ry (Finnish Business ID 0101279-1)”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 1 March 2024 and submitted for decision on 7 May 2024.
Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules
Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition
of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
24. Subsequently, 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 (February 2024 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Dutch player and a Finnish club.
25. At this point, the DRC outlined that although bankruptcy proceedings appear to have been
opened in Finland against Esport Honka Oy, the Respondent (i.e., FC Honka) is still affiliated
to the SPL and participating in competitions under its auspices.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13881
26. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Football Tribunal has jurisdiction over the
matter at hand and any further consideration pertains either (i) to the Club’s standing to
be sued in this matter or (ii) to the enforcement of the decision; both of which do not
concern the admissibility of the claim but to its substance, hence are to be analysed as part
of the merits of the dispute.
27. 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 (February 2024 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 March 2024, the cited edition of said
regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
28. For completeness, the DRC also confirmed that FIFA’s regulations prevail over any national
law chosen by the parties. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the main objective
of the FIFA regulations is to create a standard set of rules to which all the actors within the
football community are subject to and can rely on. This objective would not be achievable
if the DRC would have to apply the national law of a specific party on every dispute brought
to it. Therefore, it is not appropriate to apply the principles of a particular national law (i.e.,
Finnish Law) but rather the FIFA Regulations, general principles of law and, where existing,
the DRC’s jurisprudence.
b. Burden of proof
29. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
30. Having established its 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
31. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that it pertains to a claim for breach of contract lodged by the Player
against the Club.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13881
32. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Player argues that his employment relationship with
the Club was terminated on 21 November 2023 without just cause, due to its alleged
bankruptcy. Consequently, he requests to be awarded compensation for breach of contract in
line with art. 17 of the Regulations.
33. The Club, on the other hand, argues that the claim was lodged against the wrong party insofar
as it has never entered into an employment relationship with the Player, and could not be held
liable for the consequences of an unlawful termination. In this respect, the Club explains that
both the First and the Second Contracts were in fact signed with Esport Honka Ltd., which is a
different legal entity currently undergoing bankruptcy proceedings in Finland.
34. Against this background, the DRC acknowledged that its task was to rule upon the following:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
does the Club have standing to be sued in the matter at hand?
if affirmative, was the Second Contract terminated with just cause?
what are the consequences deriving from such termination?
35. The Chamber moved then to analyse each issue in turn.
A. Standing to be sued of the Club
36. The Club deems the claim to have been directed against the “wrong defendant” because it has
never concluded a contract with the Player; rather, the employment relationship existed with
Esport Honka Ltd. – which is allegedly a different legal entity.
37. In this connection, the DRC recalled that standing to be sued is attributed to a party who can
bear the legal consequences deriving from the rights claimed on the basis of a legally
protectable and tangible interest at stake. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS), an individual or entity has “standing to be sued” if it is personally
obliged by the “disputed rights” at stake, i.e. the party against whom the claimant must direct its
claim in order to be successful (cf. CAS 2013/A/3140, para. 8.12 and CAS 2015/A/3999 & 4000,
para. 73). Cases CAS 2006/A/1189; CAS 2006/A/1192, CAS 2013/A/3301, CAS 2008/A/1518,
2007/A/1329-1330, CAS 2007/A/1206, all confirmed that “(…) the defending party has standing to
be sued (legitimation passive) only if it is personally obliged by the ‘disputed right’ at stake”.
38. With the above in mind, the DRC gave due consideration to the following:
•
Both the First and the Second Contracts were concluded between the Player and “FC
Honka” and the only reference to Esport Honka Ltd. was found in the First Contract in
the field identifying the Club representative;
•
Since 2022 the Player was registered with FC Honka, and there was no mention
whatsoever of Esport Honka Ltd.;
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13881
•
Esport Honka Ltd. is not affiliated to the SPL and does not have a TMS account. In fact,
it seems from the position of the Club and SPL that Esport Honka Ltd. is rather a
corporate entity linked to the Respondent but external to the “football family”; and
•
The claim at hand was addressed to the exact same entity that held the Player’s
registration rights from January 2022 until the end of 2023, according to the information
retrieved from TMS (i.e., FC Honka, with TMS ID: 479238).
39. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber determined that, irrespective of the corporate
structure that FC Honka may adopt interna corporis, it is unequivocally affiliated to the SPL, and
it enjoyed the Player’s services for at least the duration of the First Contract and the first days
of the Second Contract.
40. Consequently, the DRC found no reason to further analyse FC Honka’s company structure. In
the Chamber’s view, the assessment as to whether FC Honka had a parent company / controller
under the same or a different name has no bearing in the case at hand, given that the Player’s
services and the dispute sub judice undoubtedly concern FC Honka, against whom the claim
was directed and to whom the legal consequences of the First / Second Contracts inevitably
correspond.
41. The Chamber found it equally important that even if such analysis was to be conducted, it would
be for the Club to corroborate that, despite having registered the Player in 2022 and enjoyed
his services for the subsequent season(s), it was in fact the “wrong defendant”, as claimed.
However, the DRC outlined that the Club has limited itself to file uncorroborated allegations,
which were insufficient, in the Chamber’s view, to reconstruct the entire context of the case. In
fact, the Chamber pointed out that (i) it remained unclear what the true connection between
FC Honka and Esport Honka Ltd. is; and (ii) despite being awarded twice the opportunity to
submit comments and accompanying document, the Club failed to reply and thus could not
discharge its burden of proof to this extent.
42. It followed that, to the Player and to the “football world”, the Club is the truly employer and the
correct Respondent in the case at hand (cf., art. 9, par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). The Chamber
highlighted that the DRC has already adopted a similar reasoning in case ref. 19-00640, and
further confirmed in CAS 2020/A/7180.
43. Based on the above, the DRC decided that the Club has standing to be sued in the case at hand.
B. Just cause for the termination of the Second Contract
44. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Second Contract was terminated by the Club
via Termination Notice dated 21 November 2023, which cited Esport Honka Ltd.’s alleged
bankruptcy as the reason for the termination.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13881
45. Notwithstanding the above, and as already outlined by the Chamber in the previous issues, the
latter found it decisive that the Club remained affiliated to the SPL and participating in
competitions. Likewise, the Chamber highlighted that the Club did not advance any
documentary evidence as to the bankruptcy proceedings, its purported impact on the Club’s
operations or Player, and/or any proof that such termination took place as an ultima ratio
measure.
46. On top of the above, the DRC also found it telling that the Second Contract was terminated only
6 days after it came into force. This denoted – in the Chamber’s view – that the Club was or
should have already been aware of any financial / corporate restrictions or constraints placed
upon it before signing a new employment agreement with the Player.
47. In parallel, the Chamber underscored that the Club also failed to advance evidence of having
ever contacted the Player to remedy the situation before the Termination Notice, hence casting
doubt over its position. The same was also true for the Chamber when considering that the
Player has never been provided with any information concerning Esport Honka Ltd. and its
influence over his employment with the Club.
48. Based on all the abovementioned considerations, the DRC decided that the Club terminated
the Second Contract without just cause.
C. Consequences
49. 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.
50. In particular, 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.
51. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first had to clarify whether the
pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had
agreed beforehand upon an amount of compensation payable 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.
52. 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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13881
out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a
non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
53. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the Player’s claim, the Chamber proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Second Contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of EUR 164,637.10 serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
•
EUR 5,787.10 as the pro rata salary of December 2023 (i.e., 26 days);
•
EUR 72,450 as the salaries from January until 15 November 2024 (i.e., 10.5 months);
•
EUR 86,500 as the salaries from 16 November 2024 until 15 November 2025 (i.e., 12
months).
54. 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.
55. Indeed, the player found employment with Turku. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 53,550,
broken down as follows:
•
•
EUR 51,000 as the salaries from January until October 2024 (i.e., 10 months);
EUR 2,550 as the pro rata salary of November 2024 (i.e., 15 days).
56. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination did not
take place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that no
additional compensation should be awarded in this case.
57. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of
the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay the amount of EUR 111,087.10
to the Player (i.e., EUR 164,637.10 minus EUR 53,550), which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-13881
58. 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 him interest on said compensation at the
rate of 5% p.a. as of 21 November 2023 until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Likewise, the Chamber highlighted that art. 24, par. 3, lit. b) of the Regulations reads as follows:
“Such consequences may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has:
[…] b) been informed that the debtor club was subject to an insolvency-related event pursuant
to the relevant national law and is legally unable to comply with an order.”
62. In view of the foregoing, the DRC underscored that two requirements must be met in order to
use the exemption stipulated above, namely: (i) the debtor club is subject to an insolvencyrelated event pursuant to the relevant national law; and (ii) it is legally unable to comply with
an order.
63. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, despite arguing that insolvency proceedings
were apparently opened against it in Finland, the Club did not fulfil the second requirement
stipulated by art. 24, par. 3 of the Regulations. In particular, the Chamber deemed that the Club
could not establish that the Player was ever made aware of the insolvency proceedings before
the abrupt termination of the Second Contract nor that the Club was in fact prevented from
delivering any payment.
64. 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.
65. 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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-13881
66. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of the
Regulations.
d. Costs
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-13881
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Kevin Jansen.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, FC Honka, must pay to the Claimant EUR 111,087.10 as compensation for
breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 November 2023 until
the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the
following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be
of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in
the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of
the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with
art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-13881
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. 20