Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9764
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 September 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Jurgen Locadia
BY:
Frans de Weger (the Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi (Qatar), member
CLAIMANT:
FC Persepolis, Iran IR
RESPONDENT 1:
Jurgen Locadia, the Netherlands
Represented by Archana Mahabiersing
RESPONDENT 2:
Cangzhou Mighty Lions FC, China PR
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9764
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 August 2022, the Dutch player Jurgen Locadia (hereinafter the Respondent 1 or the
Player) and the Iranian club FC Persepolis (hereinafter the Claimant or Persepolis) concluded
an employment agreement (hereinafter the Employment Agreement), valid until the end of
season 2022/2023.
2.
In accordance with the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the respective season ran as from
21 June 2022 until 20 May 2023.
3.
In Clause 7 of the Employment Agreement, the Claimant and the Respondent (jointly
referred to as the Parties) agreed upon a total contract value for season 2022/2023 in the
amount of USD 1,080,000 net, payable as follows:
−
−
−
−
−
−
USD 216,000 “after the signature of the employment contract, after the issuance of the
ITC, and after the successful result of medical tests which will be made by the Iran
Football Federation”;
USD 172,800 (plus possible bonus)* on 1 October 2022;
USD 172,800 (plus possible bonus)* on 1 December 2022;
USD 172,800 (plus possible bonus)* on 1 February 2023;
USD 172,800 (plus possible bonus)* on 1 April 2023;
USD 172,800 (plus possible bonus)* on 1 June 2023.
* the bonuses were based upon performance of the Player/team.
4.
Under Clause 4 of the Employment Agreement, Persepolis was obliged to provide the
Player with (a) accommodation; (b) mobile phone; (c) residency and work permit; (d) oneround business ticket Tehran-Netherlands or Spain-Tehran.
5.
Any unauthorized Player’s absence was to be punished in accordance with Clause 4.7 and
Clause 4.8 of the Employment Agreement as follows:
“In case of any inexcusable delay in returning from the vacation (leave days), the club is
entitled to penalize the player for the amount of USD 5,000 for every single day of the delay,
In case of the continuation of the inexcusable delay, up to more than one week, in addition
to the daily charge, the Club is entitles to penalize the player by deducting at most %25 of the
amount of the Player’s annual contract.
For any inexcusable absence, in each training session USD 5,000 (Five Thousand Dollars) and
for each inexcusable absence in any competition USD 50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) will be
deducted the club from the payments agreed to be paid to the player in the contract (contract
value).”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9764
6.
On 16 September 2022, the 22-year-old Mahsa Amini died in police custody.
7.
On 3 October 2022, the Player posted the following message on his Instagram:
“Mahsa, Amini, may your soul Rest in Peace. Wish I could have scored a goal and win the game
yesterday for you and your family and for the rest of Iran. We will be stronger on Friday.”
8.
Allegedly, in October 2022, the Dutch government amended its travel advice related to
visits of Iran IR to “red”, recommending all Dutch citizens to depart from the country. The
Player provided no evidence as to when this measure was implemented.
9.
On 16 October 2022, the legal representative of the Player sent a WhatsApp message to
Mr Hosseini (i.e. Club’s representative), requesting information regarding the transfer value
of the Player in case of a potential transfer. Mr Hosseini replied that Persepolis is not
interested to sell the Player.
10. Allegedly, in October/November 2022, the Player’s teammates and the head coach were
“contacted by the police and were threatened for posting on social media and their opinion
regarding the anti-regime protests.” The Player provided no evidence to these allegations.
11. According to the Player, in mid-November 2022, Persepolis took his passport, which was
only returned on 13 December 2022.
12. Between 21 – 29 November 2022, the legal representative of the Player and Mr Hosseini
have exchanged WhatsApp regarding a potential transfer of the Player.
13. On 12 December 2022, FIFPro released a statement that “shocked and sickened by reports
that professional footballer Amir Nasr-Azadani faces execution in Iran after campaigning for
women’s rights and basic freedom in his country.”
14. On 17 December 2022, the Player wished to leave Iran IR, yet he was not able to as he did
not have the necessary permission to do so. In this regard, the Player asserted that he
purchased a flight ticket for the said date.
15. On 17 December 2022, the Player contacted Mr Hosseini, who advised the Player to contact
team manager to request a permission to leave Iran IR.
16. Allegedly, the Player reached to the Dutch embassy in Iran IR in order to leave the country
on 17 December 2022. Based on the Player’s submission, the embassy could not help him
due to a potential diplomatic conflict between the countries.
17. On 18 December 2022, the Player requested Persepolis to be granted a “permission to leave
the country for a couple of days due to a family emergency.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9764
18. The request was reiterated by the Player’s legal representative.
19. On 18 December 2023, Persepolis granted the Player the leave and requested him to “take
part in training session on 21/12/2022”.
20. On the same day, the Player left Iran IR.
21. On 21 December 2022, the Player sent the following letter to Persepolis:
“(…) As you know, the situation in Iran changed drastically following the death of Mahsa Amini
on 16 September 2022:
There have been – and still are – massive protests against the regime;
Tehran is trying to turn the tide with censorship, internet blockades, the arrest of journalists,
police brutality, mass arrests and the death penalty;
Dozens of people who were involved in the protests have been sentenced to death. In early
December Iran carried out the first two executions of individuals who were arrested during
the protests. Both individuals were 23 years old. One of them was executed in public.
The Ministry of Justice of Iran announced that it had arrested 40 foreigners for their
involvement in the anti-regime protests, without giving further details about their nationality.
Authorities previously said nine Europeans had been arrested, including a Dutchman. In total,
at least 15.000 people have been arrested.
Mr Locadia tried to make the best of the situation in the hope that things would get better.
Unfortunately the opposite is happening: things are getting worse and worse every day and
literally no one is safe:
Some team mates of Mr Locadia have already been contacted by the police and were
threatened for posting on social media and their opinion regarding the anti-regime protests;
A friendly match against another club was cancelled due to the captain’s arrest for being pro
anti-regime protesters;
The jewelry store of Ali Daei was closed by the Iranian government because of his support to
the anti-regime protesters;
Iran's most celebrated actress, Taraneh Alidoosti, was arrested last week after she
condemned the state's use of the death penalty against protesters;
Iranian soccer player Amir Reza Nasr Azadani has been sentenced to death after he was
arrested last month for joining nationwide protests against the country's clerical
establishment.
Last but not least: the Dutch government is very clear in its advice:
“The security situation in Iran has deteriorated. Consequently, there is a red travel advisory
in place for the whole of Iran. Do not travel to Iran. This advice applies, regardless of your
circumstances. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is unlikely to be able to help you if you get into
difficulties. If you are in Iran, leave the country if you can do so safely.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9764
Termination Employment Agreement
In short: the situation in Iran is flat out dangerous. Mr Locadia fears for his safety when he is
in Iran and will not return. Therefore he regrets to inform you that – under these
circumstances – he cannot carry on his sportive career at Persepolis. Mr Locadia has no
choice but to unilaterally terminate his Employment Agreement with immediate effect, based
on just cause (clause 14 sub 1 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
It goes without saying that Mr Locadia regrets that it has come to this and wishes the club,
his (former) team mates, the head coach, the both of you and everyone else involved, nothing
but the best.”
22. On 22 December 2022, Persepolis replied to the Player as follows:
“(…) It should be mentioned that the Persepolis club has fulfilled all its contractual obligations
from the first day until now.
Accordingly, refuting all your claims in the termination notice dated 21 December 2022, since
your absence will cause irreparable damages to the Persepolis club while reminding the
provisions of the employment agreement and FIFA regulations, you will be given 48 hours
(until 25 December 2022) to change your decision and adhere to your contractual obligations.
Otherwise, the necessary legal actions will be taken against you in FIFA, and in addition to the
responsibility for unjustified unilateral termination, you will also be responsible for
compensating all the damages caused to the club.”
23. In reply thereto, the Player informed Persepolis that he “regrets this unforeseen situation,
but is not planning to return to Iran and the club (Persepolis fc). The reasons summed up in my
letter of 21 December 2022 undeniable qualify as just cause (as specified in clause 14 sub 1 of
the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players), meaning that Mr Locadia has the
right to terminate the employment agreement before the end date. Therefore we are confident
that Mr Locadia will be successful in any proceedings brought by the club.
However, it goes without saying that we hope that the club understands, respects and accepts
the decision of Mr Locadia and does not bring the case to the FIFA courts.
If you should wish to receive additional explanation as a result of the above and my previous
letter, I will be happy to provide it.”
24. On 1 April 2023, the Player signed a new employment agreement (hereinafter the New
Employment Agreement) with the Chinese club Cangzhou Mighty Lions FC (hereinafter
Respondent 2) valid as from the signing date until 31 December 2023.
25. In accordance with Clause 3 of the New Employment Agreement, the Player is entitled to a
monthly salary of EUR 60,000 net.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9764
II. Proceedings before FIFA
26. On 28 March 2023, 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
27. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
“H-1: recognize the player for termination of the employment contract without just cause, and
H-2: to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant, compensation of net
USD 518,400 (Five Hundred Eighteen Thousand and Four Hundred Dollars).
H-3: to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant, compensation of net
USD 115,200 (One Hundred Fifteen Thousand and Two Hundred Dollars) salary from
21/12/2022 until 31/1/2023.
H-4: to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant, the fine of net USD 5,000
(Five Thousand Dollars) as the absent penalty for not participating in the training on
21.12.2022 (Art 4-8 of the contract).
H-5: to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant, the fine of net USD 400,000
(Four Hundred Thousand Dollars) as the compensation of the amount which is to be paid to
the new player of Persepolis for half season.
H-6: to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant, all the legal expenditures.
H-7: to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant default interest of 5% per
year on the aforementioned amount starting from the respective date of maturity until the
effective date of the payment.
H-8: according to provisions of Article 17. of FIFA RSTP, the above amounts should be paid
within 45 days as from the date of notification of the decision in the present matter to the
Respondent; and
H-9: in order to prevent similar examples of contractual breaches, Persepolis suggests the
honorable chamber, just in case of their discretion, impose sporting sanctions against the
Respondent (and his probable new club, just in case he enters into a new employment
contract), all in the light of FIFA.”
28. The Claimant contested the allegations of the Player contained in the termination letter
regarding his fears for safety as it argued that other foreign players did not experience such
fears.
29. To support its argument, the Claimant furthermore provided a letter of the Football
Federation Islamic Republic of Iran (FFIRI) dated 1 March 2023, stipulating that
approximately 40 foreign citizens are performing their services in the football industry in
Iran IR.
30. Equally, a letter of the Sports and Youth Ministry was submitted, that further 70 athletes
are working in Iran IR.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9764
31. The Claimant also stressed that the Player breached art. 13 et seqq. of the Regulations and
terminated the Employment Agreement without just cause since the Club was duly fulfilling
its financial obligations throughout the contractual relationship.
32. In this respect, the Claimant believed that a political unrest cannot automatically lead to a
conclusion that the employment contract cannot longer be executed.
33. Based on the above, Persepolis requested compensation calculated as follows:
“F-1: According to the Art 7 of the employment contract, Persepolis was obliged to pay the
salaries based on the below timetable:
The net amount of USD 216,000 Net (two hundred sixteen thousand dollars, will be paid to
the player after the signature of the employment contract, after the issuance of the ITC, and
after the successful result of medical tests which will be made by Iran Football Federation.
The remaining amount of the contract, namely the amount of USD 864,000 (eight hundred
sixty four thousand dollars) will be paid to the player in five equal instalments. each
instalment USD 172,800 during the season 2022 - 2023 and each instalment will be paid in
two months according to the following schedule:
1 October 2022: EUR USO 172,800 (plus possible bonus)
1 December 2022: EUR USO 172,800 (plus possible bonus)
1 February 2023: EUR USO 172,800 (plus possible bonus)
1 April 2023: EUR USO 172,800 (plus possible bonus)
1 June 2023: EUR USO 172,800 (plus possible bonus)
In other words,
−
−
−
by receiving USD 216,000, Player was committed to playing for Persepolis until
31 Sep 2022.
by receiving USD 172,800, on 1 Oct 2022, Player was committed to playing for
Persepolis until 31 Nov 2022.
by receiving USD 172,800, on 1 Dec 2022, Player was committed to playing for
Persepolis until 31 Jan 2023.
On 27 Nov 2022, the club paid USD 172,800 to the player and therefore player was committed
to playing for Persepolis until 31 Jan 2023 (date of next payment). However, player terminated
the contract on 21.12.2022 and therefore he should return USD 115,200 (One Hundred Fifteen
Thousand and Two Hundred Dollars) to the club.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-9764
F-2: as the player terminated the contract on 21/12/2022, unilaterally and without just cause,
therefore the amounts of the remaining duration of the contract validity must be paid by the
player to the club:
Payment of 1 Feb 2023 - USD 172,800, plus
Payment of 1 Apr 2023 - USD 172,800, plus
Payment of 1 Jun 2023 - USD 172,800
= USD 518,400 (Five Hundred Eighteen Thousand and Four Hundred Dollars).
F-3: the fine of net USD 5,000 (Five Thousand Dollars) as the penalty for not participating in
the training on 21.12.2022 (Art 4- 8 of the contract), as the termination contract was sent
after the training session on 21.12. 2022 and therefore he was absent from the session.
F-4: after the termination, Persepolis entered into an employment contract with a Brazilian
player. The amount of the contract is USD 1,100,000 and the amount to be paid for the halfseason, in addition to the side expenditures (tickets, Hotel, Etc.), costs USD 400,000 (Four
Hundred Thousand Dollars) for the club and thus the amount of USD 400.000 should be paid
by the respondent to the claimant.”
b. Position of the Respondent 1
34. In his reply, the Player argued that he had just cause to terminate the contract based on
art. 14 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Player argued that art. 14 of the Regulations
encompasses “political or socio-cultural reasons”, which were given in the matter at hand.
35. The Player asserted that, in particular:
“No one in Iran was safe anymore. The protesters in the first place, but also random
bystanders, children (!), people offering help to injured protesters or people serving women
without headscarves in stores and restaurants. Anyone could be arrested, mistreated, killed
or be sentenced to death.
The Iranian government also did not shy away from arresting or intimidating and threatening
athletes, artists, actors and actresses – through their families or otherwise. Many actors,
actress and other prominent Iranian citizens, have also fled Iran;
Jürgen himself was already marked as an opponent of the regime because of a post with a
photo of himself and a rest-in-peace message for Mahsa Amini;
The Dutch government has marked Iran as a code red country. The Dutch government (as
well as governments from other countries) has urged – and is still urging – all its residents to
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-9764
not go to Iran and if in Iran, to immediately leave Iran. Those who choose to stay cannot count
on help and support from the Dutch government.”
36. As to the alleged just cause, the Player asserted that based on the political situation in
Iran IR, he felt he could no longer stay there. In this respect, the Player argued that “the
turmoil that arose after the death of Mahsa Amini was definitely not predictable, beyond control
of the parties and therefore [he] could not have anticipated this.”
37. The Player further added that the Claimant did not timely fulfil its contractual obligations.
What is more, the Player mentioned that certain expenses that were contractually covered
by the contract were paid by him.
38. Pointing out to the newly signed contract, the Player argued that such contract was less
lucrative and, hence, he was not motivated to sign this contract to earn “more money
elsewhere”. He also highlighted that it took him four months to find the new employment.
39. The Player rejected the claim of the Claimant, yet specifically refrained from lodging a
counterclaim.
40. Shall the DRC rule that the Player did not have just cause, the latter argued that no damages
are due to the Claimant as it “did not suffer any damages”. In this respect, the Player
pointed out to the sporting results of the Club, as well as to the fact that the damages shall
be calculated based on the positive interest theory, which the Claimant failed to
substantiate with the necessary evidence.
c. Position of the Respondent 2
41. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent 2, argued that it did not sign the Player until
31 March 2023 and that it duly checked the documents submitted by the Player before
signing.
42. In this respect, the Respondent 2 asserted “that the player has the rightful reasons to
unilaterally terminate his contract with Persepolis FC, and FIFA agrees that under Swiss Law, the
player cannot be compelled to remain with his employer against his will.”
43. The Respondent 2 furthermore added the Player was duly registered in China PR on
6 April 2023 by FIFA and, consequently, the claim of the Claimant shall be rejected.
d. Replica
44. In its replica, the Claimant rejected the allegations of the Respondent and insisted on its
initial request for relief.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-9764
45. In particular, the Claimant was of the opinion that the Player merely points out political
issues which are “mostly false” and that such “political matters should not be involved in
football matters”.
46. The Claimant also contested any allegations regarding its non-fulfilment of the contractual
obligations and argued that any delay in payments was caused by the non-cooperation of
the Player himself.
47. The Claimant finally pointed to the WhatsApp messages of October 2022 and argued that
the Player wanted to terminate his contract as of then and, consequently, both the Player
and his new club shall be liable due to the alleged breach of art. 18 par. 3 of the Regulations.
e. Duplica of the Respondent 1
48. In his duplica, the Player mainly reiterated his position that he had just cause to terminate
the contract.
49. Concerning the political situation in Iran IR, the Player argued that “[i]t is hard to believe
Persepolis is ignoring these hard cold facts. And it’s essential to keep in mind that if the Iranian
government does not shy away from killing, torturing, arresting and executing its own citizens –
including prominent people (that tent to cause a lot of extra (unwanted) attention) and children
– what stops them from doing the same to Jürgen? And please keep in mind that – as explained
in the Response – it does not matter if someone I participating in the protests or not. You can
get arrested for basically anything. Jürgen legitimate felt that he could no longer stay safely in
Iran.”
50. Regarding the arguments of the Claimant concerning the wilful termination as of October
2022, the Player submitted new evidence (see summary paras. 14 – 15), claiming that his
legal representative “was upfront regarding Jürgen’s wish to leave Iran because of the
dangerous situation. And just as important: Mrs. Mahabiersing told Mr. Hosseini that Jürgen did
not had any offer. It is typical that Persepolis did not submitted this part of the same
conversation, because they know it would mess with their own completely unsubstantiated claim
that Jürgen was already in contact/negotiating with Cangzhou when he left Iran.”
51. In this respect, the Player submitted further evidence dated March 2023, related to the
transfer to his new club.
f. Duplica of the Respondent 2
52. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent 2 failed to submit its duplica.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-9764
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
53. 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 28 March 2023 and submitted
for decision on 21 September 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
54. 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 May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between an Iranian club, a Dutch player
and a Chinese club.
55. 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 (May 2023 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 28 March 2023, the March 2023 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
56. 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
57. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-9764
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
58. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note that this is a claim of an Iranian club against a Dutch player and his
new Chinese club.
59. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the crux of the claim lies in the assessment
of the Player’s termination on 21 December 2022. In particular, the DRC acknowledged that
their task is to decide if such termination was with just cause, based on art. 14 of the
Regulations.
60. First of all, the DRC referred to the content of art. 14 of the Regulations, which provides
that “a contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either
payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause”.
61. In this context, the Chamber recalled its longstanding and well-established jurisprudence
that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of
a contract, i.e. only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to
expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may
be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken
in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, and
vice versa, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A
premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio
measure.
62. The Chamber further recalled that the definition of just cause and whether just cause exists
shall be established in accordance with the merits of each particular case and that it the
party issuing termination that carries the burden to substantiate and prove that there was
just cause.
63. With this in mind and after having carefully analysed the Parties’ submissions, the Chamber
firstly pointed out that it remained undisputed by the Player that he received his
remuneration for the respective period, despite alleging a few days delays and/or alleged
problems with cashing the respective payments.
64. Thereafter, the Chamber focused on the main arguments of the Parties and noted that
whereas the Player insisted that it was no longer safe for him to provide his services in
Iran IR due to the worsening of the local political situation, Persepolis argued that a political
unrest cannot automatically lead to a conclusion that the employment contract cannot
longer be executed.
65. Having said that, the DRC started by recalling the chronology of the case and noted that
the Parties signed a contract in August 2022, i.e. prior to the political events taking place as
of September 2022.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-9764
66. In this respect, the DRC did not wish to omit that even before entering into the employment
agreement, Iran IR was a country experiencing safety risks and, consequently, it must be
conceded that the Player was aware of the possible risks at the moment of concluding the
Employment Agreement.
67. The members of the Chamber nonetheless recalled the arguments of the Player that,
allegedly, in October 2022, the Dutch government recommended all Dutch citizens to
depart from the country.
68. While referring to the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules, the Chamber highlighted that the Player failed to provide the
appropriate timeline as to when these recommendations were issued, i.e. if the country
status (Iran IR) had actually changed since August 2022.
69. The DRC also duly noted the Player’s arguments concerning the threats purportedly
experienced by the latter, yet it was not able to assess their veracity nor their existence as
the Player equally failed to provide any evidence thereto.
70. The DRC continued that the same applies to the Player’s allegations concerning his missed
flight on 17 December 2022 or his alleged contact with the Dutch embassy on the same
day.
71. At this point, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the Player failed to address his
concerns for safety to the Claimant; in particular, the Chamber found it noteworthy that
the Player’s request for absence mentions “family emergency”, yet the termination notice
brings forward very different reasons.
72. After thoroughly analysing the evidence on file, the DRC emphasised that the Player did
not seek to contact the Claimant in order to discuss on a possible solution or to request
from the latter security guarantees. In this regard, the DRC did not neglect the arguments
by the Player that he could not have stated to the Claimant that he felt unsafe. Nonetheless,
the DRC highlighted that had it truly been dangerous for the Player to leave the country
and had he indeed communicated his fears to the Dutch authorities, it would be expected
for him to provide the respective evidence thereto.
73. In light of the abovementioned considerations, the DRC determined that, far from acting
with caution, the Respondent decided to terminate the contract without notice by means
of his letter dated 21 December 2022.
74. After a thorough examination of all the given circumstances, the Chamber concluded that
it cannot concur with the conclusion of the Player that he had a just cause to terminate the
contract.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-9764
75. In particular, the Chamber emphasised that the sole fact of the political unrest in Iran IR
does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the contract between the Claimant and
the Player could no longer be executed.
76. In this respect, the members of the Chamber stated that it was also the Player’s
responsibility to contact the Claimant, in order to discuss whether a solution could be
found for the situation in which the Claimant considered it impossible to fulfil his
contractual duties, given the fact that he was the party unwilling to further comply with his
contractual obligations.
77. Finally, whereas the DRC did not wish to disregard the seriousness of the Player’s
allegations, it pointed out that those were not supported by sufficient evidence and,
consequently, under these circumstances, the termination of the contract by the Player did
not constitute an ultima ratio measure.
ii. Consequences
78. 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
Player.
79. 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.
80. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the Parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
81. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Player to the Club had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a
non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the
Club, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable under the terms
of the contract until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the residual value
of the contract amounting to USD 518,400 (i.e. USD 1,080,000 minus already received
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-9764
USD 561,600) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
82. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time. According to the constant
practice of the Chamber as well as art. 17 par. 1 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 due by a player to his former club. In
particular, the Chamber explained that its standard practice is to calculate the average
between the player’s remuneration with his former club and his remuneration with the new
club, for the exact same period of time comprised between the early termination of the
employment contract with the old club and the original expiry date of such contract.
83. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, indeed, the Player found new employment with
Cangzhou Mighty Lions FC. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the
Player was entitled to EUR 120,000 (i.e. USD 60,000 times 2) for the overlapping period,
which corresponds to approximately USD 130,000.
84. Thus, the Chamber concluded that between the date of early termination of the Player’s
contract with his former club and its original expiry date, the average between his
remuneration with the former club and his current remuneration amounts to USD 324,200
(i.e. USD 518,400 plus USD 130,000 / 2).
85. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the amount of
USD 324,400 to the Club, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
86. Furthermore, taking into consideration the Club’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the club interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 21 December 2022 until the date of effective
payment.
87. Lastly, the Chamber decided that Cangzhou Mighty Lions FC, in accordance with art. 17
par. 2 of the Regulations, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned amount of compensation.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
88. 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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-9764
89. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in
official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months.
90. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that Respondent 1 must jointly
pay the compensation due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days
of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the creditor, a restriction on
playing in official matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become
immediately effective on the player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the
Regulations.
91. Furthermore, considering that Respondent 2 is jointly and severally liable for the payment
of the compensation, the Chamber pointed out 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.
92. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that Respondent 2 must jointly pay
the compensation 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.
93. The Respondents 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.
94. 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
95. 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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-9764
96. 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.
97. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-9764
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, FC Persepolis, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent 1, Mr Jurgen Locadia, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 324,200 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 21 December 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Respondent 2, Cangzhou Mighty Lions FC, is jointly and severally liable for the payment
of the aforementioned compensation.
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. Respondent 1 shall be imposed with a restriction on playing in official matches up
until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall
be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
2. Respondent 2 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.
3. 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 abovementioned timeframes.
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-9764
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