Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5703
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 October 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Matej Jonjic
COMPOSITION:
Lívia Silva Kägi (Brazil), Acting Deputy Chairperson
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
Matej Jonjic, Croatia
Represented by MCA Sports Law
RESPONDENT:
Shanghai Shenhua FC, China PR
Represented by Muñoz & Arias Sports Lawyers
Page 2
REF FPSD-5703
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 January 2021, the Croatian player Matej Jonjic (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player)
and the Chinese club, Shanghai Shenhua FC (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club)
concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the Contract) to be valid as from the same
date until 31 December 2023.
2.
Pursuant to article 3 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the
following sums:
Player’s annual remuneration
“The First-year salaries:
EUR 2,000,000 (in words: TWO MILLION EUROS) from 01/01/2021 (day/month/year) until
31/12/2021 (day/month/year) before tax, which shall be a guaranteed amount of EUR
1,100,000 (in words: ONE MILLION and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND EUROS) after tax;
The Second-year salaries:
EUR 2,720,000 (in words: TWO MILLION and SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND EUROS)
from 01/01/2022 (day/month/year) until 31/12/2022 (day/month/year) before tax, which shall
be a guaranteed amount of EUR 1,500,000 (in words: ONE MILLION and FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND EUROS) after tax;
The Third-year salaries:
EUR 2,720,000 (in words: TWO MILLION and SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND EUROS)
from 01/01/2022
(day/month/year) until 31/12/2022 (day/month/year) before tax, which shall be a guaranteed
amount of EUR 1,500,000 (in words: ONE MILLION and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND EUROS) after
tax;
The annual salaries shall be paid to [the player] in 12 (twelve) months equally divided monthly
instalments each year. [The club] shall pay the […] last month amount […] on the 15th (Fifteen)
day of every month. In the event that this contract shall be expired or terminated, any
outstanding payables from [the club] to [the player] shall become immediately due and be
paid in full before or on the last business day of the month for which such expiration or
termination is deemed to take place.
Match Bonuses
(..)USD 4,000 as bonus (net) for each win match in CSL, Chinese Cup and Asian Champions
League. (..)USD 2,000 as bonus (net) for each draw match in CSL, Chinese Cup and Asian
Champions League.
Page 3
REF FPSD-5703
The above-mentioned bonuses are subject to the Player participating in the game more than
45 minutes. In the event the player makes an appearance as a substitute, then he shall receive
half of the bonus payable in each case.
Match bonuses shall be paid by [the club] to [the player] together with the monthly instalment
of the salary for the month for which they are due.
Clean Sheet Bonuses
“[The club] shall pay [the player] EUR 5,000 as bonus (net) in the event [the player] take part
in [the club] team wins match and without conceding any goals in each official match in CSL,
Chinese Cup, Asian Champions League. This bonus shall be paid by [the club] to [the player]
together with the monthly instalment of the salary for the month for which they are due.
[The club] shall pay [the player] EUR 3,000 as bonus (net) in the event [the player] take part
in [the club] draw match and without conceding any goals in each official match in CSL,
Chinese Cup, Asian Champions League. This bonus shall be paid by [the club] to [the player]
together with the monthly instalment of the salary for the month for which they are due.”
3.
Furthermore, under article 4 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to provide the
Claimant with the following benefits:
Flight Tickets
“[The club] shall provide [the player] with (5) round-trip business class flight tickets from
Shanghai, China to Croatia (country of nationality of [the player]) for each contractual year
(every 12 months from the signing date of this Contract constitutes a contractual year)”.
Housing Allowance
“[The club] shall pay [the player] USD 2,000 (TWO THOUSAND USD) net per month for the
rental of furnished apartment. [the player] shall bear all costs and expenses, including but not
limited to water, electricity, gas, cable TV and any other expense. These expenses may be
deducted from [the player]’s salary if borne by [the club]. The payment due date will follow as
the Clause 2 of Article 3 1.”
4.
1
With regard to the fiscal regime applicable to the aforementioned payments, the Parties
stipulated the following:
th
i.e., on the 15 day of each following month.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5703
Taxation matters
Before-tax amounts under this Contract refer to amounts including all taxes and fees that [the
player] shall pay arising from the income obtained from [the club]. Before [the club] pays [the
player] each instalment of the amounts agreed under this Contract, [the club] shall be
responsible for the withholding and payment of income tax due and any other tax- related
payables from [the player] in Mainland China from the before-tax amount payable to [the
player] in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations of the People’s Republic of China
(hereinafter referred to as “China”). Any taxes, expenses, levies, etc. that might be originated in
any country or region outside of Mainland China shall be exclusively declared, paid and borne
by [the player]. [The club] shall provide [the player] with official tax payment receipts or any
other certificate equivalent to in respect of the [the player]’s income tax in the territory of
Mainland China under this contract within 30 (thirty) business days upon each payment of such
tax amounts each contractual year.
The Parties understand and agree that the after-tax amount under this Contract refers to the
amounts after deducting the taxes to be paid in Mainland China and such amounts are stated
just for reference. The actual after- tax amount received by [the player] shall be the amount
that deducted all taxes needed to have been paid in Mainland China.”
5.
Finally, under article 9 of the Contract, the Parties inserted a “termination clause”, which
content is reproduced here below for the sake of clarity:
“(..) The Parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that, in accordance Art. 17 of FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the event the Player terminates the
contract without just cause, or the Club terminates the contract with just cause due to a breach
of contract of the Player, the Player will be liable to compensate the Club with the amount of
USD 10,000,000 (TEN MILLION USD) as compensation.
(..) in the event the (CLUB) terminates the contract without just cause, or the Player terminates
the contract with just cause due to a breach of contract of the Club, the Club will be liable to
compensate the Player with the amount equal to all remaining remuneration due to the Player
from the moment of termination and until the end of the contract, i.e. 31 December 2023. This
remuneration includes salary, premiums, bonuses, pre-payments. This without prejudice of the
Player seeking compensation for any further damage suffered.
In such event, [the club] shall provide [the player], a 10-day notice to cure the breach, if the
breach is capable of remedy, failing which [the club] will be entitled to terminate the Contract
with immediate effect and claim compensation from [the player] under this Article. [the
player] has the right to terminate this Contract by notifying [the club] in writing by providing
[the club], a notice period of 10 days if any of the following events occurs:
Page 5
REF FPSD-5703
•
[the club] fails to pay salary to [the player] for more than two (2) months and fails to
remedy such default within 15 (fifteen) days upon receipt of [the player]’s written
notification.
•
[the club] cheats and/or forces [the player] to participate in any illegal or unfair training or
matches or influences training or matches in an illegal manner or other activities in violation
of the law and/or applicable regulations.”
6.
On 15 November 2021, the Respondent through its General Manager, Mr. Zhou Jun,
convened a meeting with the players and staff, apprising them about the club’s offer to
suspend the payment of the salaries due to the financial predicament being faced by the
Respondent as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Claimant also attended the said
meeting.
7.
In occasion of the abovementioned meeting, the Respondent proposed to its players,
including the Claimant, a postponement of the payment of the relevant salaries to “February
or March 2022”.
8.
Nevertheless, by means of correspondence dated 8 December 2021, the Claimant declined
the Respondent’s proposal and requested that his outstanding salaries would be paid by 15
December 2021 and that all the upcoming payments would be executed no later than 16
February 2022.
9.
On 16 December 2021, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent putting the latter in
default of the following sums:
a.
b.
c.
d.
EUR 275,000 net as sum of the salaries falling for July, October and November 2021;
EUR 24,000 net as sum of clean sheet bonuses;
USD 10,000 net as sum of game bonuses; and
USD 22,000 net as sum of payments for housing.
10.
In this context, the Claimant granted the Respondent 15 days in order to remedy the breach
(i.e. until 31 December 2021) and added that “such communication should be deemed as written
notification, as pursuant to the Contract, and the remedy period of 15 (fifteen) days as stipulated
in clause 6.1 of Article 9 in the Contract shall have fully matured in the event of any default on 31
December 2021.”
11.
On 31 December 2021, the Respondent paid to the Claimant the sum of CNY 89,320
corresponding to about USD 14,000 and intended by the same Respondent as housing
allowance for 7 months.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5703
12.
On 1 January 2022, the Claimant sent a second letter to the Respondent reiterating the
default notice of EUR 299,000 and USD 32,000, while granting further 10 days (i.e., until 10
January 2022) in order to remedy the breach.
13.
Contextually, the Claimant warned the Respondent that in case of further failure, the
Claimant would have been entitled to exercise his right to terminate the Contract
prematurely as per what stipulated by the Parties thereto.
14.
On 14 January 2022, the Claimant notified the Respondent of the unilateral termination of
the Contract with alleged just cause, namely due the entity of overdue payables exceeding
the two monthly salaries and amounting to EUR 299,000 and USD 18,000.
15.
On 18 January 2022, the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the Japanese club
Cerezo Osaka.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16.
On 7 April 2022, 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
17.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay part of the remuneration accrued
for the services rendered by the Claimant in the period between 1 January 2021 and 16
December 2021.
18.
In particular, the Claimant alleged that the following sums remained outstanding:
a.
b.
c.
d.
EUR 275,000 net as salaries due for July, October and November 2021;
EUR 24,000 net as clean sheet bonuses;
USD 10,000 net as game bonuses; and
USD 22,000 net as sum of payments for housing.
19.
Furthermore, the Claimant accused the Respondent of having failed to provide the relevant
tax certificates related to each payment realized in favour of the Claimant, in spite of such
obligation being expressly indicated under the same Contract.
20.
In this respect, the Claimant argued that in the absence of the abovementioned certificates,
the gross amounts pertaining to the monthly salaries already paid to the Claimant shall be
considered still due and payable, otherwise the Respondent should produce adequate
evidence that all relevant taxes have been correctly withheld and paid.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5703
21.
To this effect, in the Claimant’s view, the difference between the gross amounts agreed as
salaries in the Contract and the amounts effectively received by the Claimant as net should
be awarded in favour of the latter.
22.
Accordingly, the Claimant stated that since the Respondent had paid a total of eight (8)
salaries of EUR 91,666.67 net each (out of the EUR 166,666.67 gross for each monthly
instalment), therefore, the Respondent should be now held liable to compensate the
Claimant with the relevant difference which is equal to EUR 600,000 gross [8 x (EUR
166,666.67 – EUR 91,666.67].
23.
On the base of the above, the Claimant stated that the sums outstanding at the moment of
the termination, on 15 January 2022, were largely exceeding 2 monthly salaries, hence he
held having just cause to unilaterally resolve the employment relationship with the
Respondent.
24.
Consequently, in addition to the sums referred to as outstanding, the Claimant claimed a
compensation by the Respondent for breaching the Contract.
25.
In this respect, the Claimant invoked the application of the clause included by the parties
under article 9 of the Contract.
26.
In particular, according to the Claimant, the mentioned article 9 would clearly foresee that in
case of termination by the Claimant with just cause, the Respondent shall be entitled to
receive the entire residual remuneration from the moment of termination until the end of
the Contract, i.e., 31 December 2023, and such remuneration shall include salary, premiums,
bonuses, pre-payments, etc., hence no mitigation shall be considered by FIFA.
27.
In this context, the Claimant illustrated which sums in his opinion should constitute the
compensation:
“Amounts which became due on 15 January 2022
-
EUR 166,666.67 gross (or in the alternative EUR 91,666.67 net) as December 2021
salary.
-
EUR 5,000 net for the match against Qingdao on 12/12/2021 (Final Score 3-0
for the Club) as Clean Sheet Bonus.
-
USD 4,000 net for the match against Qingdao on 12/12/2021 (Final Score 3-0 for the
Club) as Match Bonus.
-
USD 2,000 net for the match against Shijiazhuang on 15/12/2021 (Final Score 1-1) as
Match Bonus.
Page 8
REF FPSD-5703
-
USD 4,000 net for the match against Chingqing on 18/12/2021 (Final Score
4-1 for the Club) as Match Bonus.
-
USD 2,000 net for the housing allowance of December 2021; and
-
EUR 6,945.30 net for outbound flight on 24 December 2021
-
EUR 104,328.77 gross; or in the alternative 57,534.26 net; and
USD 933.33 net for housing allowance (USD 2,000 x 14/30 days)
Remuneration as of 1 until 14 January 2022
-
Residual value year 2022
-
EUR 2,615,671.23 gross; or
In the alternative, EUR 1,442,465.74 net.
Residual value year 2023
-
EUR 2,720,000 gross (or EUR 1,500,000 net).
Total remaining value until 31 December 2023
28.
-
EUR 5,606,666.67 gross for salaries or EUR 3,091,666.67 net
-
USD 10,000 net for Match Bonuses.
-
EUR 6,945.30 for Flight Tickets”.
-
EUR 5,000 net for Clean Sheet Bonuses.
-
USD 2,933.33 net for Housing Allowance; and
Alternatively, the Claimant stated that in case the DRC should decide to take into account the
mitigation ex art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), an
additional compensation shall be paid corresponding to 3 additional salaries and the
following calculation shall be adopted:
“(Residual value) EUR 5,606,666.67 (or EUR3,091,666.67) – (Mitigation) EUR 876,394
(USD 1,000,000 converted into EUR - conversion rate on 18 January 2022) = EUR
4,730,272.67 gross (or EUR 2,215,272.67 net) + (Additional compensation) EUR 680,000
gross (or EUR 375,000 net) = (Effective Compensation) EUR 5,410,272.67 gross (or EUR
Page 9
REF FPSD-5703
2,590,272.67 net) (+ EUR 5,000 net for Clean Sheet Bonuses + USD 10,000 net for Match
Bonuses + USD 2,933.33 net for Housing Allowance; and EUR 6,945.30 for Flight Tickets).”
29.
Furthermore, the Claimant demanded an additional amount of EUR 1,360,000 gross, or
alternatively EUR 750,000 net equal to six months salaries as compensation under the
concept of the “specificity of sport” on the basis of the following grounds:
-
“There were significant amounts due to the Player for outstanding salaries and the
benefits over a considerable period of time and without any intention of the Club to
meet its financial obligations.
-
Despite two warning letters sent by the Player on 16 December 2021 and 1 January 2022,
the Club completely ignored him. The Club did not even bother to reply to him,
increasing the already huge uncertainty and lack of trust that the Player was feeling by
the Club’s behaviour.
-
No payment whatsoever was made by the Club to the Player despite his patience and
the several chances he had granted the Club for compliance with the Employment
Contract’s terms.
-
The Player terminated unilaterally the Employment Contract with just cause in light of
overdue payables by the Club within the Protected Period. With respect to the criterion
of “Protected Period”, whether the termination occurred inside or outside the Protected
Period is expressly stated as being one of the objective criteria for calculating
compensation under Article 17 par. 1 FIFA RSTP. There is a vital distinction between the
treatment of a termination, dependent upon whether this has occurred inside or outside
the Protected Period. Given that, under Article 17 FIFA RSTP, there is a sliding scale of
sanctions in place that refers to whether the termination took place inside or outside
the Protected Period, by analogy, the issue of whether the Employment Contracts’
termination occurred inside or outside the Protected Period must therefore by of major
significance when determining the level of compensation payable. In other words, the
fact that the severance of the employment relationship falls during the Protected Period
is a gross aggravating circumstance to be considered by CAS, in such circumstances, the
damage is greater and therefore, the compensation should be also increased
respectively.
-
The Club, in a further attempt to jeopardize the Player’s career and aggravate the already
significant damage suffered by him in light of the Club’s severe non-compliance with its
contractual obligations under the Employment Contract, instructed the Chinese Football
Association “not to issue the relevant ITC for the transfer of the Player” when Japanese
FA inserted this request in the FIFA TMS.
-
Pursuant to Article 3 par. 5 of the Employment Contract, the Parties had agreed that
Page 10
REF FPSD-5703
the Club would be responsible for the withholding and payment of income tax due and
any other tax-related payables from the Player in Mainland China. In addition, the Club
undertook the obligation to provide the Player “with official tax payment receipts or any
other certificate equivalent to in respect of the [the player]’s income tax in the territory
of Mainland China under this contract within 30 (thirty) business days upon each
payment of such tax amounts each contractual year.” Had the Club properly complied
with all its contractual and legal obligations, the Player would have remained a fiscal
resident in China and thus received all amounts mentioned in this Claim as net, subject
to further compliance by the Club of its obligations under Article 3.5 of the Employment
Contract. However, because of the Club’s breaches and in light of the conclusion
of the Cerezo Osaka.
-
30.
Employment Contract, the Player is now a non-permanent resident in Japan and
therefore subject to a personal income tax according to a rate corresponding to 20,42%
(Exhibit no. 22a-bis). In this respect, although the Employment Contract also includes a
provision according to which “Any taxes, expenses, levies, etc. that might be originated
in any country or region outside of Mainland China shall be exclusively declared, paid
and borne by [the player]”, this would only apply if the Club had complied with the
Employment Contract, and not in case of the breach by the Club of the Employment
Contract as in the matter at hand. As such, in the event the DRC considers that the
outstanding remuneration and compensation shall be paid to the Player net, then all
net amounts requested in this Claim should be grossed up with the corresponding
20,42% that the Player will be required to pay as taxes being a non-permanent resident
in Japan. Additionally, the Player may have further claims against the Club for payment
and/or reimbursement of taxes, costs or fees paid in other countries upon the amount
received or payable by the Club, in concept of damages.”
In conclusion, the requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
a) “To order the Club to pay to the Player a) outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR
1,124,000 and USD 18,000; and
b) compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 5,618,611.9749 (or, subsidiarily, EUR
5,422,217.9750) and USD 12,933.33.
In the alternative
c) To order the Club to pay to the Player outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR
299,000 net and USD 18,000 net; and
d) compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 3,103,611.9752 net (or, subsidiarily,
EUR 2,602,217.9753 net) and USD 12,933.33 net.
Page 11
REF FPSD-5703
e) To order the Club to pay to the Player an amount of EUR 1,360,000 (or, subsidiarily, EUR 750,000
net) as damages relating to the specificity of sport.”
31.
Lastly, the Claimant requested the application of 5% interest per annum on all the demanded
sums as from the relevant due dates.
b. Position of the Respondent
32.
According to the Respondent, the Claimant committed several errors in the computation of
the demanded sums, hence it provided a different calculation but did not contest the
Claimant’s just cause to terminate the Contract on 15 January 2022.
33.
In particular, the Respondent argued that, whereas the amount of EUR 275,000 net as
Claimant’s outstanding salary is correct, the existence of outstanding bonuses (respectively
clean sheet and match bonus) was not effectively proved by the Claimant as he simply
referred to several sport websites whose validity as reliable source of information would be
debatable, hence the Claimant has not fulfilled his onus probandi and no bonus shall be paid.
34.
In continuation, the Respondent argued that it had no contractual obligation to provide the
Claimant with a furnished apartment, but rather to pay an allowance for the apartment
rented by the Claimant.
35.
In this respect, the Respondent stressed out that the Claimant failed to prove that he had
effectively rented or paid a furnished apartment for the alleged period, hence also in this
case the amount claimed shall not be awarded for lack of evidence.
36.
Thirdly, for what concerns the reimbursement of the flight ticket demanded by the Claimant,
the Respondent alleged that the Claimant has not attached any boarding pass or any proof
to demonstrate that he actually travelled to any of the places mentioned in the invoice on
the dates as mentioned in the invoice. Moreover, the Respondent argued that the Claimant
did not show any evidence that he was authorised by the Respondent to leave Shanghai on
16 November 2021, while the 2021 season of the Chinese Super League was still ongoing.
37.
Therefore, according to the Respondent, the Claimant would be not entitled to receive any
reimbursement or compensation for the alleged expenses.
38.
In the context of the payments already realized, and in response to the Claimant’s objection
concerning the issue of the relevant tax certificates, the Respondent argued that first of all,
the Claimant always received his salaries as net, hence there was no practical utility to
provide the Claimant with any tax certificate, especially as the latter never requested it.
Page 12
REF FPSD-5703
39.
Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that the issue of such certificates would not
depend on the Respondent itself but only on the relevant Chinese tax authority, over which
the Respondent cannot exercise any form of control or pressure.
40.
Moreover in this respect, the Respondent argued that the Chinese tax authority represents
a third party outside of the FIFA DRC jurisdiction, hence FIFA would not be competent to
adjudicate the matter anyway.
41.
Secondly, the Respondent remarked that the Contract does not provide for any differential
payment to be made in case of non-transmission of the relevant tax certificates, so the
Claimant’s demand lacks legal basis.
42.
Lastly, the Respondent wished to remark that it has always remitted the payment of the
relevant taxes for the salaries paid to the Claimant and submitted a document from the
“Electronic Taxation Bureau for Natural Persons (witholding side)”.
43.
Moving to the termination of the Contract occurred by hand of the Claimant on 15 January
2022, the Respondent recognized the Claimant’s right to receive a compensation but argued
that the calculation presented by the Claimant shall be amended because erroneous.
44.
In this respect, the Respondent first stated that the compensation payable to the Claimant
shall be calculated as from 15 January 2022 only, hence excluding any further sum that might
pertain to the first 14 days of January prior to the termination of the Contract.
45.
Accordingly, in the Respondent’s view, the effective residual value of the Contract to serve as
basis for the calculation of the compensation would correspond to the remaining salaries
under the Contract from 15 January 2022 to 31 December 2023, and would amount to EUR
2.941.666,67 net.
46.
Furthermore, the Respondent held that the Claimant failed to declare the effective
consistency of the mitigation he realized by signing a new employment contract with Cerezo
Osaka.
47.
In this respect, the Respondent requested that the Claimant disclosed all the agreements
entered with Cerezo Osaka that were not included in the documentation uploaded in the
FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS).
48.
In particular, the Respondent alleged that on 7 February 2022, the same Claimant disclosed
to the Respondent that the total value of the remuneration due under the employment
contract with the Japanese club would amount to USD 2,100,000 (i.e., USD 1,000,000 for 2022
and USD 1,100,000 for 2023), whereas in the present proceeding the Claimant declared only
USD 1,000,000, thus hiding part of the said sums in order to reduce the mandatory mitigation
process.
Page 13
REF FPSD-5703
49.
In this context, the Respondent highlighted that the Employment Agreement signed by the
Claimant with Cerezo Osaka and uploaded in TMS, namely under Article 4, confirms that “the
Association Agreement does not include all the remuneration terms agreed between the Player
and Cerezo Osaka.”
50.
Accordingly, the Respondent argued that the real duration of the employment agreement
with Cerezo Osaka has been fixed by the relevant parties to be valid until 31 December 2023,
and a total of USD 2,100,000 (EUR 1,840,427) shall be deducted from the compensation to
which the Claimant is entitled, namely as mitigation.
51.
With the above in mind, the Respondent stated that EUR 1.840.427 net (USD 2,100.000) must
be subtracted from the residual value of the Employment Contract, i.e., EUR 2.941.666,67,
consequently, the total amount of compensation would amount to EUR 1.101.239,27 net.
52.
In this context, the Respondent also wished to exclude any additional compensation
demanded by the Claimant, namely as the Claimant signed a new employment contract
immediately after the termination with the Respondent and did not neither wait for the
months of February/March 2022 in order to verify whether the Respondent’s promises to
remedy the breach would be respected by the latter, in spite of being aware of the financial
difficulties faced by the Respondent at that time.
53.
On the basis of the above, and remarking its continuous research for a dialogue with the
Claimant, as also proven by the exchange of correspondence and attempts for remedying
the alleged breach occurred between February and March 2022, the Respondent rejected in
its entirety the demand of the Claimant for additional compensation based on the specificity
of sports.
54.
The requests for relief of the Respondent, accordingly, were the following:
-
“The Player is entitled to receive EUR 275.000 net (Two hundred seventy five thousand
Euros) from the Club as outstanding salaries;
-
The Player is not entitled to receive any match bonus from the Club as the Player failed
to fulfil his burden of proof;
-
The Player is not entitled to receive any clean sheet bonus from the Club as the Player
failed to fulfil his burden of proof;
-
The Player is not entitled to receive any apartment allowance from the Club as the
Player failed to fulfil his burden of proof;
-
The compensation payable by the Club to the Player shall be calculated from 15
Page 14
REF FPSD-5703
January 2022 as the Player unilaterally terminated the Employment Contract on 14
January 2022. In this sense, the remaining salaries under the Employment Contract (15
January 2022- 31 December 2023) amount to EUR 2.941.666,67 net.
-
(..) the total basic salary under the new employment contract until 31 December 2023
i.e. EUR 1.840.427 (USD 2.100.000) being earned by the Player from Cerezo Osaka until
31 December 2023 should be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the
mitigation. in accordance with FIFA RSTP and the Swiss Law, the value of the new
contract corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated
Employment Contract i.e. EUR 1.840.427 (USD 2,100.000) must be subtracted from the
residual value of the Employment Contract i.e. EUR 2.941.666,67, consequently, the
amount of compensation would amount to EUR 1.101.239,27 net.
-
As a further alternative, if the Hon’ble Chamber does not agree with our argument that
the Player has failed to mitigate his damages, then we submit that the total basic salary
being currently earned by the Player until 1 January 2023 i.e. EUR 876.394 (USD
1.000.000) should be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the mitigation.
Consequently, the amount of compensation would amount to 2.065.272,67 net
(2.941.666,67 - EUR 876.394).”
c. Final comments of the Claimant
55.
In his replica, the Claimant highlighted the fact that the Respondent admitted that the
Claimant had just cause to terminate the Contract, namely by acknowledging the consistency
of the salaries outstanding at that time.
56.
Conversely, with regard to the other sums indicated as outstanding by the Claimant (i.e.,
match participation and clean sheets bonuses), and contested by the Respondent, the
Claimant pointed out that the Respondent did not expressly contest the Claimant’s
participation in the relevant matches but simply the source of information adopted by the
latter.
57.
In this context, the Claimant held that he provided 3 different sources in terms of relevant
statistics, such as transfermarkt.com, soccerassociation.com and Wikipedia, all vastly used
on a global scale and difficult not to consider reliable.
58.
Furthermore, for what concerns the housing allowance, the Claimant indicated that the
Contract contained a clear obligation on the Respondent to simply pay a monthly housing
allowance of USD 2,000, regardless of the type of accommodation chosen by the Claimant,
hence said amount cannot be disregarded.
59.
In continuation, with respect to the flight ticket expenses incurred by the Claimant, the latter
argued that the Respondent confused the file exhibits produced by the Claimant.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5703
60.
In particular, the Claimant remarked that his claim for EUR 6,945.30 for reimbursement is
based on the flight taken by the Claimant on 24 December 2021, whereas the Respondent
falsely asserted that the Claimant left Shanghai on 16 November 2021.
61.
In this respect, the Claimant declared to have never left Shanghai on 16 November 2021 but
only on 24 December 2021 as it is evidenced not only from the invoice submitted as
evidence– which is dated 24 December 2021 and indicates as date of departure the 24
December 2021 – but also from the immigration stamps presented with the Claimant’s
passport and enclosed to the claim. Therefore, according to the Claimant, the Respondent
failed to corroborate its allegations also in this context.
62.
In continuation, with regard to the non-submission by the Respondent of the relevant tax
certificates over the wages previously paid, the Claimant argued that the Contract expressly
foresees such obligation under art. 3 par. 5, where it states: “[the club] shall provide [the
player] with official tax payment receipts or any other certificate equivalent to in respect of the
[the player]’s income tax in the territory of Mainland China under this contract within 30 (thirty)
business days upon each payment of such tax amounts each contractual year.”
63.
In this respect, the Claimant held that the document produced by the Respondent as extract
from the “Electronic Taxation Bureau for Natural Persons (witholding side)” would have no real
probatory value and even in the opposite, it would simply prove that the Respondent paid
an amount of CNY 2,357,227.37 (“equal to EUR 343,909.71 with the applicable exchange rate of
0.145896 on 3 August 2022”), which is by far much less than what it should have been remitted
in light of the Contract and based on the fiscal status of the Claimant in China.
64.
In particular, the Claimant argued that, considering the Chinese taxation regime of 45%, the
gross annual salary of EUR 2,000,000 shall correspond to EUR 1,100,000 net after applying
the said regime as personal income tax.
65.
Accordingly, the relevant amount payable by the Respondent as taxes for the 8 salaries
received by the Claimant in 2021 (EUR 166,666.67 gross x 8) should correspond to about EUR
600,000 (EUR 1,333,333.36 x 45/100).
66.
Consequently, the Claimant reiterated his request for the payment of EUR 600,000 gross due
to the eight (8) salaries paid allegedly net by the Respondent.
67.
Lastly, with regard to the amount of compensation to be calculated, the Claimant simply
rejected the Respondent’s allegation concerning the existence of a disparity in terms of
duration between the Employment Agreement uploaded by Cerezo Osaka in the TMS and
the one else allegedly executed.
68.
Accordingly, the Claimant reiterated his requests for relief.
Page 16
REF FPSD-5703
d. Final comments of the Respondent
69.
In its final submission, the Respondent held the position assumed in its first defensive brief.
70.
In particular, with regard to the fiscal regime, the Respondent insisted on the fact that FIFA
is not competent to adjudicate on matters which relate to taxation in the territory of China,
as it exclusively falls under the ambit of national law.
71.
In continuation, the Respondent reiterated that the Contract does not provide for any
payment of the difference between the net and gross amounts in the event of nontransmission of the tax certificates.
72.
With regard to the ground for claiming the bonuses alleged, the Respondent insisted on the
lack of reliability of the sources adopted by the Claimant in that respect.
73.
In support of the above, the Respondent highlighted the evident asymmetry in terms of
information that is noticeable when comparing TMS to one of the aforementioned sources,
such as the website Transfermarkt.com.
74.
In particular, the Respondent referred, as an example, to the contractual terms stipulated
between the Claimant and his new club Cerezo Osaka.
75.
In this context, the Respondent argued that in the claim lodge before FIFA, the Claimant
explicitly stated that the employment contract with Cerezo Osaka was signed on 18 January
2022, and it is valid from 2 February 2022 until 1 January 2023, whereas the page extracted
from Transfermarkt and produced by the Claimant unequivocally states that the latter joined
Cerezo Osaka on 17 February 2022 and that the relevant contract shall expire on 31 January
2023.
76.
Consequently, in the Respondent’s opinion, the Claimant has still failed to produce solid
evidence of the matches played and the claimed bonus shall not be awarded because the
source of information adopted is not reliable.
77.
Equally, for what regards the housing allowance and flight tickets reimbursement, the
Respondent argued that the Claimant failed to provide evidence of the facts alleged (i.e., no
proof that he had effectively rented an apartment nor bought a flight ticket from China to
Croatia only) nor of the expenses effectively incurred.
78.
Finally, with regard to the amount to be liquidated as compensation, the Respondent
objected once again to the content of the contractual terms declared by the Claimant and
Cerezo Osaka.
Page 17
REF FPSD-5703
79.
In particular, the Respondent insisted on the fact that the Association Agreement uploaded
in TMS by Cerezo Osaka does not reflects the effective duration of the Employment
Agreement signed with the Claimant alleging that there are two different contracts in force
with the Japanese club.
80.
With the above in mind, and in consideration of the information allegedly revealed to the
Respondent by the Claimant on 7 February 2022, the Respondent held that the effective
duration of the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Japanese club
amounts to two years.
81.
Accordingly, the Respondent argued that also the second-year contract with Cerezo Osaka
shall be included in the mitigation process, hence the total sum of EUR 1,840,427 (total value
of the contract with Cerezo Osaka) shall be deducted from the residual value of the contract
with the Respondent (i.e., EUR 2.941.666,67).
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
82.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note
that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 7 April 2022 and submitted for decision on
27 October 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2022 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.
83.
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 October 2022 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
Croatian player and a Chinese club.
84.
However, the Chamber observed that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies to adjudicate on matters which relate to taxation in the territory of China, as
this would exclusively fall under the ambit of national law.
85.
Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear employment-related disputes between
a player and a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any player
(…) or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”.
Page 18
REF FPSD-5703
86.
In this context, Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the contract at the
basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of
the Chinese Civil Court. Quite the contrary, the Chamber noted that under article 12 of the
Contract, the parties expressly agreed on FIFA’s competence in case of any dispute arising in
connection with their employment relationship.
87.
Having stated the above, the Chamber then highlighted that according to art. 22 par. 1 lit. b)
of the RSTP, the Football Tribunal has in principle competence to deal with the dispute in
question, but that it had also to examine, in light of the objection raised by the Respondent,
whether the dispute at hand was employment-related.
88.
Given the particular constellation of the case and the evidence in the file, the Chamber
observed the following: (a) the application of the domestic fiscal regime to the Claimant as
employee of the Respondent is specified under article 3 par. 5 of the Contract; (b) the
wording of article 3 par. 5 of the Contract explained the circumstances of its execution, thus
linking it to the recruitment of the player under the Contract, which is undisputedly a labour
agreement.
89.
Consequently, although the matter at hand concerns issues related to national fiscal
matters, the Chamber confirmed nonetheless it is an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension on the basis of the Contract executed by and between the parties.
90.
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 (October 2022 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 April 2022, the March 2022 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
91.
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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
92.
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
Page 19
REF FPSD-5703
all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
93.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the Respondent objected only to the quantum of the sums
demanded by the Claimant but not to the latter’s right to terminate the Contract on 15
January 2022, nor to his entitlement to be compensated.
94.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to establish the exact amount
of outstanding sums (if any) and as the termination has occurred with just cause of the
Claimant, which shall be the consequences thereto.
95.
Firstly, the Chamber focused on the employment relationship between the parties in order
to determine which were the amounts payable by the Respondent to the Claimant under the
relevant contract.
96.
In this respect, the Chamber firstly observed that the Respondent acknowledged the
existence of outstanding salaries in favour of the Claimant amounting to EUR 275,000 and
corresponding to the months of July, October and November 2021.
97.
Secondly, the Chamber focused on the Claimant’s demand for the bonuses stipulated under
art. 3 of the Contract, namely those entitled “match bonuses” and “clean sheet bonuses”. The
Chamber noted that the payment of said bonuses was subject to, respectively, the Claimant’s
participation for at least 45 minutes in a game won or drawn by the team and the Claimant’s
participation, regardless of the time effectively played, in a game won or drawn by the team.
98.
Furthermore, the Chamber took note that only official matches of Chinese Super League,
Chinese Cup and Asian Champions League would be considered for the purposes of
assigning the bonuses.
99.
In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant referred having participated, during
the season 2021/2022, in 18 matches of the Chinese Super League, 17 of which for the entire
duration (i.e., 90 minutes) and in 5 matches of Chinese Cup, where he played 90 minutes
during each match.
100. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent disputed the validity of the
sources of information provided by the Claimant in support of his allegations, namely by
arguing that the websites indicated would not reflect the exact circumstances and statistics
alleged by the Claimant.
Page 20
REF FPSD-5703
101. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Claimant satisfied the
standard of proof required in order to corroborate his allegations, that is, the comfortable
satisfaction degree. In particular, the Chamber remarked that the evidence put forward by
the Claimant was quite illustrate as to the exact same data and numbers with regard to the
Claimant’s footballing activity with the Respondent. Furthermore, the Chamber wished to
emphasize that there was no evidence on file capable to confirm the Respondent’s allegation
that the websites referred to by the Claimant in his bundle of evidence allowed ordinary
users to insert or manipulate the information contained therein – and even more so that the
information presented by the Claimant had been manipulated.
102. Accordingly, based on art. 3 of the Contract and the proven circumstances triggering the
payment of the bonuses, and in the absence of any proof of payment by the Respondent,
the Chamber concluded that the claimed bonuses are due and still outstanding.
103. In continuation, with regard to the monies demanded by the Claimant as housing allowance,
the Chamber judged that art. 4 of the Contract is clear and unambiguous in that respect. In
fact, the Chamber noted that the under the mentioned provision the parties expressly
agreed on a fixed housing allowance of USD 2,000 per month, regardless of any further
condition or factor, such as the type of accommodation or Claimant’ submission of the rental
agreement to the Respondent.
104. Furthermore, the Chamber noted from the parties’ submissions that it remained undisputed
that on 31 December 2021 the Respondent paid to the Claimant the sum of CNY 89,320,
corresponding to about USD 14,000 and understood by the same Respondent as housing
allowance for 7 months.
105. In view of the above, and based on the clear wording of art. 4 of the Contract, the Chamber
determined that the Claimant shall be entitled to housing allowances sought.
106. Similarly, in respect to the claim for reimbursement of the flight ticket dated 24 December
2021, the Chamber deemed as self-explanatory the invoice produced by the Claimant,
namely as it clearly indicates the route Shanghai – Paris – Zagreb - Split, i.e., from China to
Croatia and finds its legal basis under art. 4 of the Contract. As such, the DRC confirmed this
amount should be awarded to the player.
107. Furthermore, with regard to the applicable taxation, the Chamber wished to remark that,
despite the Contract imposes on the Respondent a duty to provide the Claimant with the
relevant tax certificates, there would be no legal basis to award the payment of the difference
between net and gross salaries already paid by the Respondent, hence the latter shall be
held liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding sums previously indicated as net only.
Page 21
REF FPSD-5703
108. In this context, the Chamber established that the Respondent shall provide the Claimant with
the relevant tax certificates once the payment of the current outstanding amounts will be
realized and only for these amounts.
109. Finally, having ascertained the existence of significant overdue payables in favour of the
Claimant at the time of the termination and due to the fact that the same Respondent did
not dispute the Claimant’s right to end prematurely the employment relationship on 15
January 2022, the Chamber determined that the Claimant terminated the Contract with just
cause, hence he shall be entitled to a compensation.
ii. Consequences
110. Having stated the above, and before entering into the consequences of such unjustified
breach of contract committed by the Respondent, the members of the Chamber focused
their attention on the total value of outstanding monies payable to the Claimant.
111. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the outstanding salaries at the time of
termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 4
salaries under the contract, amounting to EUR 366,666.68 and corresponding to the months
of July, October, November, and December 2021.
112. Furthermore, the Chamber calculated that the Claimant is entitled to EUR 29,000 as clean
sheet bonuses, USD 20,000 as match bonuses, USD 10,933.33 as housing allowance and EUR
6,945.30 as reimbursement of the relevant flight ticket.
113. For the sake of clarity, the Chamber wished to remark that the abovementioned sums were
calculated as follows:
•
EUR 3,000 net for the match against Wuhan on 28/07/2021 (Final Score 0-0) as Clean
Sheet Bonus;
•
EUR 3,000 net for the match against Hebei on 03/08/2021 (Final Score 0-0) as Clean
Sheet Bonus;
•
EUR 5,000 net for the match against Tianjin Tigers on 12/08/2021 (Final Score 1-0 for
the Club) as Clean Sheet Bonus;
•
EUR 5,000 net for the match against Changchun on 18/10/2021 (Final Score 2-0 for the
Club) as Clean Sheet Bonus;
•
EUR 5,000 net for the match against Shenzen on 24/10/2021 (Final Score 1-0 for the
Club) as Clean Sheet Bonus;
Page 22
REF FPSD-5703
•
EUR 3,000 net for the match against Shenzen on 29/10/2021 (Final Score 0-0) as Clean
Sheet Bonus;
•
USD 2,000 net for the match against Hebei on 03/08/2021 (Final Score 0-0) as Match
Bonus;
•
USD 4,000 net for the match against Dalian on 09/08/2021 (Final Score 4-2 for the Club)
as Match Bonus;
•
USD 4,000 net for the match against Tianjin Tigers on 12/08/2021 (Final Score 1-0 for
the Club) as Match Bonus;
•
EUR 5,000 net for the match against Qingdao on 12/12/2021 (Final Score 3-0 for the
Club) as Clean Sheet Bonus;
•
USD 4,000 net for the match against Qingdao on 12/12/2021 (Final Score 3-0 for the
Club) as Match Bonus;
•
USD 2,000 net for the match against Shijiazhuang on 15/12/2021 (Final Score 1-1) as
Match Bonus;
•
USD 4,000 net for the match against Chingqing on 18/12/2021 (Final Score 4-1 for the
Club) as Match Bonus;
•
USD 10,933 net for the housing allowance from August 2021 until 14 January 2022;
114. 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 402,611.98
plus USD 30,933.33.
115. 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 the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
116. 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
Page 23
REF FPSD-5703
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.
117. 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.
118. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of article 9 of the contract, which
established that “(..)The Parties hereby expressly and irrevocably agree that, in accordance with
Art. 17 of FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, (…) in the event the (CLUB)
terminates the contract without just cause, or the Player terminates the contract with just cause
due to a breach of contract of the Club, the Club will be liable to compensate the Player with the
amount equal to all remaining remuneration due to the Player from the moment of termination
and until the end of the contract, i.e. 31 December 2023. This remuneration includes salary,
premiums, bonuses, pre-payments. This without prejudice of the Player seeking compensation for
any further damage suffered.”
119. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that it
appears proportionate and in line with the longstanding jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, and therefore was to be applied in the case at hand to determine the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant.
120. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the amount of EUR 3,000,000 net (i.e., the residual
value of the contract), as per the compensation clause agreed between the parties in the
contract, is due to the player by the club.
121. 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 07 April 2022 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
122. 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.
123. 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.
Page 24
REF FPSD-5703
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. 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
127. 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.
128. 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.
129. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 25
REF FPSD-5703
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Matej Jonjic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Shanghai Shenhua FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
EUR 91,667.67 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 August
2021 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 91,667.67 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
November 2021 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 91,667.67 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
December 2021 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 91,667.67 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 January
2022 until the date of effective payment;
USD 10,000 net as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 September 2021
until the date of effective payment;
EUR 3,000 net as outstanding bonus plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 August 2021 until the
date of effective payment;
EUR 8,000 net as outstanding bonus plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 September 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 13,000 net as outstanding bonus plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 November 2021
until the date of effective payment;
USD 2,000 net as outstanding housing allowance plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
September 2021 until the date of effective payment;
USD 2,000 net as outstanding housing allowance plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 October
2021 until the date of effective payment;
USD 2,000 net as outstanding housing allowance plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
November 2021 until the date of effective payment;
USD 2,000 net as outstanding housing allowance plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
December 2021 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 5,000 net as outstanding bonus plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 January 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
Page 26
REF FPSD-5703
EUR 6,945.30 net as flight tickets reimbursement plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 January
2022 until the date of effective payment;
USD 10,000 net as outstanding bonus plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 January 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
USD 2,933.33 net as outstanding housing allowance plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16
January 2022 until the date of effective payment;
Furthermore, the Respondent is ordered to provide the Claimant with the relevant
certificate attesting the payment of taxes to the competent authorities in the amounts
under point 2 above.
EUR 3,000,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 07 April 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with
article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 27
REF FPSD-5703
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).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 28