Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4395
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 January 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Edwar
Manuel López Gómez
COMPOSITION:
CLIFFORD Hendel J. (USA/France), Deputy Chairperson
BOEYKENS Stijn (Belgium), member
DOS SANTOS MEGALE Andre (Brazil), member
CLAIMANT:
Edwar Manuel López Gómez, Colombia
Represented by MS International Law
RESPONDENT:
Club Olimpia, Paraguay
Represented by Ariel N. Reck
Page 2
REF FPSD-4395
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 19 January 2021, the Colombian player, Edwar Manuel López Gómez (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the player), and the Paraguayan club, Club Olimpia (hereinafter: the Respondent
or the club) signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31
December 2021 (hereinafter: the contract).
2.
According to clause 2, I.I. of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player a lump sum
of USD 195,174 VAT included, payable in 3 instalments as follows:
- USD 68,156, upon signing of the contract;
- USD 63,509 on 15 March 2021;
- USD 63,509 on 10 June 2021.
3.
Pursuant to clause 2, I.II. of the contract, the player is entitled to a monthly salary of USD
15,000 plus VAT.
4.
Clause 2, I.III. of the contract established that the player is entitled to a monthly contribution
to his living costs of USD 1,000 plus VAT.
5.
On 9 June 2021, the club informed the player about its decision to terminate the contract
with immediate effect due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As reasons for the unilateral
termination of the contract the club referred to art. 78 par. d) and art. 79 of the Labour Code
of Paraguay as well as to the squad reduction it allegedly needed to make for strict compliance
with the “APF COVID-19” protocol.
6.
On 29 June 2021, the player signed a new employment contract with the Colombian club,
Deportivo Independiente Medellín (hereinafter: DIM), valid as from the date of signature until
30 June 2022 (hereinafter: the DIM agreement), for the following remuneration:
-
From 29 June 2021 to 31 December 2021: Colombian Pesos (COP) 20,000,000 (approx.
USD 5,307 on 29 June 2021) per month;
From 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2022: COP 70,000,000 (approx. USD 18,575 on 29 June
2021) per month.
7.
Clause 4 of the DIM agreement stipulated that the latter would be automatically extended in
case the parties do not communicate in advance their intention to terminate the contract. In
brief, the DIM agreement could be extended 3 times, for a minimum period of 1 year each.
8.
As per clause 9 of the DIM agreement, the parties agreed, in accordance with Colombian
law, that any payments granted to the player, in time, money or in natura benefits, on a
regular or occasional basis, contractually or conventionally agreed, such as food, housing,
clothes, incentives, representation expenses, holidays bonuses, scholarships, inter alia, should
Page 3
REF FPSD-4395
not be considered as an integral part of the player’s remuneration, but rather complementary
benefits.
9.
Also on 29 June 2021, the player and DIM concluded an agreement for the temporary transfer
of 50% of the player’s economic rights, with a purchase option of the other 50% of his
economic rights and 100% of his federative rights. Such agreement is also valid from 29 June
2021 to 30 June 2022.
10. Clause 2 (purchase option) of the agreement stipulates that the player grants DIM the option
to acquire in a definitive manner 50% of his economic rights and 100% of his federative
rights in the following manner: USD 1,000,000, provided that the intention to purchase is
notified within 5 days after the end of the club’s participation in the División Mayor del Fútbol
Colombiano 2021, at the latest on 30 December 2021. In case such option in not exercised,
the club can still purchase the player’s residual economic and federative rights at a later stage
for USD 1,200,000, provided that the intention to purchase is notified within 5 days after the
end of the club’s participation in the first semester of the División Mayor del Fútbol
Colombiano 2022, at the latest on 30 June 2022. The aforementioned payments shall be
made within 24 hours as from the notification of the intention to purchase.
11. Clause 3 (temporary transfer option) of the agreement stipulates that for the temporary
transfer of 50% of the player’s economic rights, he should receive a total of COP 370,000,000
(approx. USD 98,182 on 29 June 2021) payable as follows:
-
COP 35,000,000 upon signature;
6 monthly instalments of COP 50,000,000 each, payable in arrears on the same day as
the player’s salary as from July 2021;
COP 35,000,000 in December 2021.
12. Finally, also on 29 June 2021, the player and DIM signed a “housing fee agreement”, also
valid from 29 June 2021 to 30 June 2022 or as long as the DIM agreement lasts, as per which
the player was entitled to a housing fee of COP 2,500,000. The parties explicitly agreed that
such amount should not be considered as an integral part of the player’s remuneration.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 14 July 2021, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA for breach of
contract, requesting outstanding salaries and compensation.
14. On 8 October 2021, seemingly not having registered any reply from the club, FIFA passed a
decision on the merits of the case. Subsequently, the club appealed the case to the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (TAS 2021/A/8422 Club Olimpia v. Edwar Manuel López Gómez & FIFA),
alleging that it had in fact replied to the player’s claim.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4395
15. FIFA verified the exchange of correspondence carried out during the relevant proceedings. As
a result, it was learned that the club’s reply to the player’s claim dated 19 August 2021 was
identified as malware and, as a result, wrongly prevented from being properly processed by
FIFA. As a consequence of the foregoing, upon agreement with the player and the club, FIFA
accepted to hear the case again and the cited CAS proceedings were terminated.
16. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
17. The player has claimed the following:
“1. The Respondent shall be obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 79,509
(seventy-nine thousand five hundred and nine US dollars) net as outstanding remuneration,
plus interest at the rate of 5% per year, calculated as follows:
- on USD 63,509, as of 16 March 2021 until the date of effective payment and
- on USD 16,000, as of 1 June 2021 until the date of effective payment.
2. The Respondent shall be obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 168,509 (one
hundred sixty-eight thousand five hundred and nine US dollars) net as compensation for the
breach of contract, plus interest at the rate of 5% per year over said amount, as from the
date of the submission of the present claim until the date of effective payment.”
18. The player stated that he rendered his services to the club to their full satisfaction as from his
arrival. However, the club paid him only the first instalment of the lump sum due on 19
January 2021 and the monthly salaries and living costs for the months up to and including
April 2021. Specifically, the club failed to pay the player the second instalment of the lump
sum of USD 63,509 due on 15 March 2021 as well as the monthly salary of USD 15,000 and
living allowance of USD 1,000 for May 2021 as per the contract.
19. The player maintained that the club seems to base the termination of the contract on the
COVID-19 pandemic and force majeure, and added in this regard that he signed the contract
in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and in full awareness of its existence. As a result, it
is evident, in the player’s opinion, that the club breached the employment contract without
just cause and is therefore responsible to indemnify him for doing so.
b. Position of the Respondent
20. In its reply, the club confirms that the player’s contract was terminated due to the restrictions
imposed on the club due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The club states that, even though the
contract was concluded during the pandemic, none of the parties explicitly accepted the risks
of such and therefore the club was entitled to terminate the player’s contract due to force
majeure.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4395
21. In particular, the club claims that the pandemic deeply affected its finances, due to the
considerable losses in membership fees and tickets. According to the club’s financial report
(attached to its reply), the pandemic, especially its second wave, consumed all the club’s
financial resources. The club particularly mentions the limitation to 30 players plus 10 reserve
players imposed by the Paraguayan Football Association (APF), which was totally unexpected
and upon which the club had no influence. Thus, the club considers that this background
constitutes a force majeure situation which allows it to terminate the contract in accordance
with the clausula rebus sic stantibus, as it was impossible for the club to perform the
obligations originally undertaken in the contract due to unforeseen and uncontrollable
situations.
22. The club claims the pandemic developed in totally unexpected ways and the parties had not
specifically agreed in the contract that they would accept these risks. The club claims that the
player, when signing the contract, was aware of the sanitary protocol of the APF as well as
of the limitation in the number of players. When the club changed its coach, the player was
no longer in the narrow selection of players and this was a natural risk he accepted.
23. Furthermore, the club claims that after being informed of the termination, the player did not
contest it and immediately found a new club, evidencing that he in any case did not intend
to stay with the club.
24. Thus, the club requests that FIFA declares that the player should only be entitled to the
outstanding amounts at the time of termination, namely the residual instalment of USD
48,584.40 and his salary for May 20221 in the amount of USD 15,000.
25. Subsidiarily, in case FIFA decides to grant the player an amount of outstanding remuneration
and compensation, the club deems that FIFA should deduct from any amounts awarded the
VAT and the income tax, which in Paraguay amount to 10% and 15% respectively. Thus, the
instalment of USD 63,509 in fact corresponds to USD 48,584.40, after the deduction of 10%
of VAT (USD 57,158) and 15% income tax (USD 48,584.40). The club underlines that these
deductions were already made in the payment of the first instalment and that the player has
explicitly accepted them. Furthermore, any amounts earned with his new club should be
deducted from the compensation requested.
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
26. In his rejoinder, the player fully rejects the argumentation of the club related to the just cause
for termination and insists on his claim. In particular, he states that the argument that the
termination of the contract was justified by force majeure or by the application of the clausula
rebus sic stantibus is completely unfounded.
27. In this respect, the player adds that “the club does not provide any evidence to support the
alleged financial losses due to the loss of spectator revenues or the restriction of the players
Page 6
REF FPSD-4395
at its disposal due to government measures based on Paraguayan law because of COVID-19.
Much less can the club prove that such legal restrictions, the existence of which we dispute,
would have made it impossible to fulfil the contract in accordance with its obligations or
would have justified its termination. In any case, the document ‘APF Protocol for the Safe
Return to Paraguayan Football COVID-19’ submitted by the club in this context does not
justify the termination of the contract. This is because the document was not issued by the
Paraguayan government but by the Paraguayan Football Association, a private organisation,
and is therefore not suitable from the outset to justify force majeure in any form. Furthermore,
the document does not foresee any legal consequences for the contracts of the players
affected by the restriction of the squad provided for therein”.
28. The player further states that the club’s argument that the squad restriction constituted an
event of force majeure is equally unfounded, as it did not make it impossible for the club to
retain the player’s services. Furthermore, the player points out that the club’s argument that
the player was aware of the existence of the sanitary protocol of the APF when signing the
contract, contrary to what the club says, proves that “the club signed the player in full
awareness of the limited number of places in the squad and accepted the dismissal of some
players”.
29. Based on the above, the player deems that the early termination of the contract is not justified
by a situation of force majeure and therefore the clausula rebus sic stantibus does not apply
in the present matter. Consequently, the club terminated the contract with the player without
just cause. The fact that he did not dispute the termination is due to the fact that the club
presented its decision to him as “fait accompli, which left him no choice but to find a new
club as soon as possible where he could pursue his profession as a footballer”.
30. Finally, the player claims that the “club’s assertion regarding the alleged gross nature of the
lump sum to which the player is contractually entitled is also baseless. Contrary to the club’s
opinion, the contract did not stipulate a gross amount, but a net amount. In particular, the
contract does not provide for any deductions from the lump sum for any taxes which would
not have to be paid by the player but by the club, as the club would have it believe without
referring to the relevant legal provisions. As neither the accounting report submitted by the
club nor the proof of payment proves otherwise, the club’s argument concerning the gross
nature of the amount must be dismissed as unsubstantiated, and the player must be awarded
the net amount of the payments claimed”.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
31. In its final comments, the club only addressed the player’s new contract and deems that the
latter did not correctly inform FIFA of its current remuneration with his new club.
32. In particular, the club claimed that FIFA should not only take into account the employment
contract with the new club, but also the agreement of temporary transfer of the player’s
economic and federative rights. The club claims that the player’s actual total salary consists
Page 7
REF FPSD-4395
of the remuneration stipulated in the contract (USD 3180 for 6 months) plus the payments
due to him established in clause 3 the agreement (USD 100,128 for 6 months). His new total
monthly remuneration (i.e. USD 16,688) would be similar to the one received with the club
and should be taken into account in the calculation of compensation.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
33. 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 14 July 2021 and submitted for decision on
27 January 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
34. 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 (August 2021 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Colombian player
and a Paraguayan club.
35. 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 July 2021, the February 2021 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
36. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged
fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed the wording
of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed
by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer
Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
37. 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
Page 8
REF FPSD-4395
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
38. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether the club had just cause to
terminate the contract and the consequences thereto.
39. The DRC recalled on one side that the player deems that such termination was without just
cause and requests from the club the payment of outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of USD 248,018 plus 5% interest
p.a.
40. On the other side, the Chamber was also observant that the club states that the termination
was with just cause, since it was allowed to make use of the clausula rebus sic stantibus, since
the COVID-19 pandemic, although known, developed in totally unexpected ways, creating a
situation of force majeure.
41. In this context, the Chamber, first of all, wished to highlight that FIFA issued a set of
guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate guidance and
recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the
consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response is
harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an
additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on the
most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19
outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
42. The Chamber also wished to refer to the fact that said guidelines – as per the explicit wording
of FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines – are only applicable
to “unilateral variations to existing employment agreements”. Therefore, except where a
termination of a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as a result of COVID19 (in which case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the guidelines),
said guidelines do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing employment
agreements. The Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes that are
presented before the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of a contract,
the FIFA Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber shall apply.
43. As to the concept of a situation of force majeure, the Chamber also noted that, based on the
contents of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, FIFA did not declare
that the COVID-19 outbreak was a force majeure situation in any specific country or territory,
or that any specific employment or transfer agreement was impacted by the concept of force
Page 9
REF FPSD-4395
majeure. In other words, in any given dispute, it is for a party invoking force majeure to
establish the existence of said event under the applicable law/rules as well as the
consequences that derive in connection thereto. The analysis of whether a situation of force
majeure existed has to be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the
relevant circumstances.
44. Following these general observations, the Chamber noted that, in the case at stake, no
unilateral variation was made to the contract prior to the termination entailing that the latter
shall be analysed in accordance with the Regulations and the regular jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal in this respect.
45. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber emphasised that only a breach or default of a
certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are
objective criteria that do not reasonably allow for the continuation of the employment
relationship between the parties, can a contract be terminated prematurely. Therefore, if
there are more lenient measures that can be taken by the employer to ensure the fulfilment
of the employee’s contractual obligations, such measures should be taken before terminating
the employment contract. The early termination of an employment contract can only be a
measure of ultima ratio.
46. Based on the documentation and argumentation on file, and in line with FIFA’s jurisprudence
and the COVID-19 Guidelines, the Chamber found that club clearly did not have a just cause
to terminate the contract with the player. As correctly pointed out by the Claimant, the
Chamber outlined that the club signed him during the pandemic and in full knowledge of
the restrictions imposed by the APF in the number of players.
47. Thus, it is clear in the Chamber’s view that the club signed a new player while being aware
of the risk that he would not be allowed to perform his services and accepting the risks of an
early termination. The pandemic, in the present case, constitutes by no means a force majeure
situation and does not allow the application of the clausula rebus sic stantibus since, simply
put, the club was already fully aware of its implications by the time the contract was executed
between the parties.
48. Additionally, the Chamber highlighted that the club’s difficult financial situation also does
not justify the non-payment of the player’s remuneration or the early unilateral termination
of his contract.
49. As such, the Chamber found that the club terminated the contract without just cause and
shall bear the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
50. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
Page 10
REF FPSD-4395
51. Firstly, the members of the Chamber agreed that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations
under the employment contract until the date of termination of the contract, in accordance
with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda.
52. In particular, taking into account Claimant’s petition, the contract concluded between the
parties, as well as the documentation on file, the Chamber established that, at the date of
the termination of the contract, the club owed the player the amount of USD 79,509, detailed
as follows:
- USD 63,509, corresponding to the 2nd instalment of the lump sum due on 15 March 2021;
- USD 16,000, corresponding to the monthly salary and monthly contribution to the player’s
living expenses from May 2021.
53. Consequently, in strict application of the principle pacta sunt servanda, the DRC established
that the Respondent should pay to the Claimant, the total amount due of USD 79,509.
54. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant’s request, as well as the long-standing case
law in this regard, the DRC decided to award interest at the rate of 5% per annum on said
amount as from the pertinent due dates.
55. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
56. 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.
57. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said
provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
Page 11
REF FPSD-4395
58. Before entering the calculation of the amounts due, the DRC addressed the issue raised by
the club regarding the taxes and deductions allegedly applicable to the amounts stipulated in
the contract.
59. From the wording of the contract, the DRC inferred that the monthly salary and the living
costs (stipulated as “amount plus VAT”) are net and the VAT should be paid on top of the
amounts stipulated. Thus, the club’s request for any reduction of these amounts was rejected
by the Chamber.
60. As to the lump sum, the contract’s wording is “amount VAT included”, which could be
interpreted in the sense that the aforementioned tax would be deducted from the amount
stipulated. The club, however, did not provide any evidence – thus falling short of meeting
its burden of proof enshrined in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules – of having deducted
such taxes and paid it to the relevant authorities. The same can be said about the club’s
allegation that income tax should be deducted from the amounts due. Therefore, these
allegations of the club were equally set aside by the Chamber.
61. Consequently, the DRC determined that the amounts taken into account for the calculations
shall be the amounts stipulated in the contract, without any further deductions.
62. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of USD 168,509 (i.e. the residual value of the contract) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. The Chamber
arrived at such amount considering the last instalment of the lump sum of USD 63,509, as
well as the player’s monthly salaries from June until December 2021 amounting to USD
105,000 (i.e. USD 15,000*7).
63. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
64. Indeed, the player found employment with DIM. Before proceeding with the calculations, the
DRC proceeded to determine the amount of the player’s new remuneration, in view of the
documentation on file and the allegations of the club.
65. In spite of the clause included in the “living costs agreement” and in the DIM agreement,
which explicitly forbids that any other payments or benefits not described as “monthly salary”
are considered as an integral part of the player’s remuneration, the Chamber noted that the
Page 12
REF FPSD-4395
“agreement for the temporary transfer of the player’s economic and federative rights” as well
as the “living costs agreement” provide for considerable payments made to the player, some
of which were established on a monthly basis and together with the salary. This clearly
indicated to the Chamber that such concepts indeed are part of the player’s total
remuneration with his new club.
66. Therefore, the DRC took these amounts into account in order to establish the mitigation as
per the player’s new contract. Equally, the DRC confirmed that the relevant time period to be
taken into account is July to December 2021, i.e. 6 months.
67. In accordance with the DIM agreement and its ancillary contracts, the player was entitled to
the following:
a.
the DIM agreement: 6 months à COP 20,000,000 each (approx. USD 5,307) as
monthly salary, amounting to USD 31,842;
b.
“Living costs agreement”: since the agreement does not clearly specify whether
such amount is paid monthly or only once, the DRC considered a single payment for the
relevant period, i.e. COP 2,500,000 or USD 663;
c.
“Agreement for the temporary transfer of the player’s economic and federative
rights”: Total of COP 370,000,000 or USD 98,182.
68. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount
of USD 130,687.
69. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination did not
take place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that
the player shall not receive any additional compensation.
70. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 37,822
to the player (i.e. USD 168,509 minus 130,687), which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
71. 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 the date of claim until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
72. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
Page 13
REF FPSD-4395
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.
73. 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.
74. 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
75. 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.
76. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-4395
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Edwar Manuel López Gómez, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club Olimpia, has to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- USD 63,509 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 March 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 16,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 37,822 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 14 July 2021 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. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), 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 art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter 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 15
REF FPSD-4395
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 16