Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-7847
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 March 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Igor
Makitan
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA and France), Deputy Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Igor Makitan, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by SPFBiH
RESPONDENT:
TS Galaxy FC, South Africa
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-7847
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 18 June 2021, the Bosnian player, Igor Makitan (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant)
and the South African club, TS Galaxy FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) concluded
a standard contract of the National Soccer League (NSL) titled “Fixed Term Contract of
Employment for Professional Footballers” valid as from 1 July 2021 until 30 June 2024
(hereinafter: the NSL Contract).
2.
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 of the NSL Contract included general regulations for disciplinary
measures and proceedings.
3.
Also on 18 June 2021, the parties signed an annexe to the NSL Contract (hereinafter: the
Annexe).
4.
According to the Annexe, the player would be entitled to the following concepts:
a. Salary payable in arrears on the last day of every month, as follows:
•
•
•
EUR 4,500 net as monthly salary from 1 July 2021 until 30 June 2022;
EUR 5,000 net as monthly salary from 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2023;
EUR 4,500 net as monthly salary from 1 July 2023 until 30 June 2024;
b. “return air tickets to Bosnia Herzegovina per season” for the player and his wife;
c. Payment and assistance from the club to the player and his wife with South African
visas and work permit applications “at the cost of the club”;
d. “free apartment” for the duration of the employment contract; and
e. Sign-on fee payable as follows:
5.
•
EUR 15,000 net for the 2021/2022 NSL season, payable in two instalments of
EUR 7,500 each due by 31 October 2021 and 31 March 2022;
•
EUR 17,000 net for the 2022/2023 NSL season, payable in two instalments of
EUR 8,500 each due by 31 October 2022 and 31 March 2023; and
•
EUR 20,000 net for the 2023/2024 NSL season, payable in two instalments of
EUR 10,000 each due by 31 October 2023 and 31 March 2024.
On 15 December 2022, the player suffered an injury in his ankle and checked-in in the Life
Fourways Hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-7847
6.
On 21 and 27 December 2021, the player attended medical appointments with an
orthopaedic doctor.
7.
On 25 January 2022, the player flew from Sarajevo (Bosnia) to Johannesburg (South Africa)
via Frankfurt (Germany). The tickets costed ZAR 13,423.75 and were paid by the player.
8.
On 14 April 2022, the player underwent further medical examinations at his own expenses.
The results were sent to a club’s representative, Mr Njabulo Menagerica (hereinafter: Mr
Menagerica) via the electronic application, WhatsApp. He also requested the club to procure
an appointment for the player to undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and such
request was reiterated on 18 and 19 April 2022, to no avail.
9.
On 25 April 2022, the player informed the club that he undertook the MRI at his own
expenses. A copy of the results was sent to Mr Menagerica, who informed that the club did
not have “funds at the time” but it would pay back as soon as it was possible.
10. Also on 25 April 2022, the player reached out to the club’s president, Mr Tim Suzaki
(hereinafter: Mr Suzaki), regarding his medical condition. He forwarded the exams results
and requested to be provided with a sports expert’s opinion and/or to be allowed to return
home to treat his injury. In reply, Mr Suzaki stated that it was better for the player to go
home to treat his injury.
11. By letter dated 26 April 2022, the club confirmed that the player “has been given permission
to travel to Bosnia for an injury rehabilitation at any time as of the date of this letter”.
12. On 4 May 2022, the player flew from Johannesburg (South Africa) to Belgrade (Serbia) via
Doha (Qatar). The tickets costed ZAR 8,377 and were paid by the player on 26 April 2022.
13. According to the player, on 2 June 2022, the club informed him (via his agent, Mr Amel
Pepic) that his services were no longer needed.
14. Also on 2 June 2022, the player received medical reports stating that he would need to
undergo surgery due to his injury.
15. On 7 June 2022, the player underwent surgery in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was
discharged from the hospital on 8 June 2022.
16. On 9 June 2022, the player informed Messrs. Menagerica and Suzaki of his surgery. He
forwarded a copy of the medical reports and the hospital invoice via WhatsApp, to no avail.
The player sent multiple reminders to the club’s representatives during the month of June,
also to no avail.
17. In July 2022, the player and Mr Menagerica exchanged messages regarding his recovery
and return to South Africa.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-7847
18. On 20 July 2022, the club sent to the player a letter via email urging him to return to its
premises by 25 July 2022 for examination and rehabilitation. It wrote in the end: “Please
reconfirm your arrival in South Africa by July 25, 2022 at the latest so that our office could send
you the air ticket”.
19. On the same date, the player replied to the club’s letter and informed that he already had
a medical control scheduled on 27 July 2022 and would keep the club posted about the
result so that they could arrange the next steps. Subsequently, the club confirmed that the
player was “welcome to return on Wednesday, 27 July 2022”.
20. On 22 July 2022, the player responded to the abovementioned email of the club and
clarified that he had a medical control on 27 July 2022, hence would not be able to return
by such date. He insisted that he would forward the results of the cited medical control as
soon as possible.
21. On 25 July 2022, the club served the player with a letter insisting that he should return to
South Africa by no later than 27 July 2022 and informing that the failure to meet such
deadline would entitle it to impose a fine for “unauthorized absenteeism, gross
insubordination, and refusal to obey reasonable and lawful instructions of the club”.
22. Also on 25 July 2022, the player replied to the club as follows: “With respect! I responded to
each of your letters within 24 hours, which is also evident from the time it arrived! I informed
you about everything in time, from the operation to all the recovery related to my injury and the
operation! I will write you what the doctor said after the control examination!”.
23. On 26 July 2022, the club reiterated its position as to immediate return of the player and
pointed out that the player’s failure to obey its order would lead to a disciplinary hearing
being held.
24. On 27 July 2022, the player echoed the contents of his latest correspondences via email.
The club, in turn, acknowledgedreceipt of his email and made no further comments.
25. On 28 July 2022, the player wrote to the club and provided a copy of the medical
examinations undertaken the previous day. He moreover informed that he was not fit to
return to South Africa yet and asked the club further information in this regard.
26. On 23 August 2022, the club addressed a new letter to the player, this time informing that
a disciplinary hearing would be held on 1 September 2022 due to his persistent absence.
Contextually, the player was informed inter alia that he could attend the meeting in person
or via authorized representative.
27. On 30 August 2022, the player via his legal representative replied to the club’s notice and
recalled the previous correspondences exchanged between the parties. He inter alia: (i)
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-7847
stressed that he was willing to discuss and coordinate his return with the club following the
next medical control; (ii) confirmed that he would attend the disciplinary hearing via
videoconference accompanied by his legal representative; and (iii) requested payment by
the club of his outstanding remuneration, namely the salary of July 2022, sign-on fee, and
the reimbursement of medical and visa expenses.
28. On 1 September 2022, the disciplinary hearing took place.
29. On 8 September 2022, the player put the club in default and requested payment of his
salaries from July and August 2022, as well as the reimbursement of the medical and visa
costs within the following 15 days.
30. On 26 September 2022 at 12:43, the player notified the club of the termination of their
employment relationship.
31. On 26 September 2022 at 19:39, the club wrote to the player as follows: “Following your
disciplinary hearing held on 01 September 2022, herewith attached the outcome from the
Chairperson which our legal team has now considered to full detail. The club hereby notifies you
of the termination of your employment with immediate effect as per the recommendation set
out in paragraph 21 of the outcome”. No attachment was enclosed to the email.
32. On 27 September 2022, the club forwarded the player a document titled “Outcome Report”
allegedly issued on 4 September 2022 by Advocate WJ Hutchinson (hereinafter: the Report).
The Report stated as follows as to the conclusions of the disciplinary hearing, quoted
verbatim:
“SANCTION RECOMMENDATION
19. The fact that Mr Makitan is a first offender and has financial obligations, cannot
outweigh the gravity of his misconduct. He elected to deliberately defy the employer’s
authority. It emerged from the evidence that Mr Makitan exploited the opportunity to
stay in his home country, for an indefinite period of time, notwithstanding that his
absenteeism was unauthorised.
20. By virtue of his attitude, continued employment has been rendered intolerable. I am
satisfied that the relationship of mutual trust and confidence has been destroyed.
CONCLUSION
21. In the result, I recommend that Mr Makitan’s services be terminated with immediate
effect”.
33. The Report was unsigned, and no further explanation was provided as to the identity of Mr
Hutchinson.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-7847
34. The player informed that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
employment relationship with the club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
35. On 13 October 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of the player
36. In his claim, the player thoroughly recalled the factual background of the case and all the
correspondences exchanged between the parties following his injury. In doing so, he
initially pointed out that the club failed to comply with its main obligation: paying his
salaries. As such, he referred to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and argued that he was entitled to terminate the employment
contract with just cause in line with art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (RSTP).
37. In addition to the above, the player also maintained that the overall behaviour of the club:
(i) lengthened and worsened his injury; and (ii) clearly demonstrated that it lost interest in
retaining his services up until the moment that it used the disciplinary proceedings as an
excuse to terminate their contractual relationship. Consequently, he reiterated that the
club’s practices amounted to abusive behaviour, corroborating the justice of his
termination.
38. The player added that the club’s termination per the Report was not an ultima ratio
measure, insofar as more lenient measures could have been taken, such as a warning,
reprimand, or financial sanction.
39. Because of the unlawful breach of contract by the club, the player requested to be awarded
to the following amounts:
a. EUR 21,280 plus ZAR 21,800.75 as outstanding remuneration broken down as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 7,500 as sign-on fee, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022;
EUR 5,000 as the salary of July 2022, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2022;
EUR 5,000 as the salary of August 2022, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September
2022;
ZAR 13,423.75 as reimbursement of flight tickets, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26
January 2022;
ZAR 8,377 as reimbursement of flight tickets, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 April
2022;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-7847
•
•
EUR 220 as reimbursement of visa expenses plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 June
2021; and
EUR 3,560 as reimbursement of medical expenses plus 5% interest p.a. as from
the relevant due dates.
b. EUR 147,000 plus EUR 43,032 as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to
residual value of the Annexe plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the termination of
the contract, broken down as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 50,000 as the salaries for the 2022/2023 season;
EUR 17,000 as sign-on fee for the 2022/2023 season;
EUR 60,000 as the salaries for the 2023/2024 season;
EUR 20,000 as sign-on fee for the 2023/2024 season; and
EUR 43,032 corresponding to the average price of an apartment in Sandton,
considering that the player was contractually entitled to have a “free apartment”.
c. “the value of four return tickets between Johannesburg and Sarajevo, which amounts shall be
calculated by FIFA Travel” plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the termination of the
contract;
d. in case the player found a new contract, 6 monthly salaries of additional compensation
in view of egregious circumstances because the club:
•
•
•
•
•
Did not provide any adequate medical support;
Let him handle every step of his surgery and rehabilitation without any support or
interest;
Ceased to remunerate him;
Refused to find a reasonable and suitable solution to enable him to return; and
Launched an abusive disciplinary procedure as a pretext to get rid of him.
b. Reply of the club
40. On 2 November 2022, the club filed its reply to the player’ claim. The club addressed every
paragraph of the player’s statement of claim. Nonetheless, its position can be summarized
as follows:
Regarding the player’s injury
41. The club challenged the player’s allegations as to its lack of diligence regarding the injury.
It claimed having paid some of his expenses and provided the necessary medical advice.
42. Furthermore, the club confirmed that it authorized the player to travel home for treatment
so that he could have the support of his family and contact with medical experts “that he
trusts and who may communicate with him every detail of his injury in his own language”.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-7847
Nevertheless, it argued that such authorization was not for an indefinite time, so that the
player breached the contract by refusing to return to South Africa after being formally
asked to do so.
Regarding the overdue payables
43. The club acknowledged having delayed payments owed to the player as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
The salaries from July and August 2022;
The sign-on fee;
Air travel expenses including the visa expenses;
Medical expenses “as to be proven by the FIFA DRC”; and
5% interest over the abovementioned amounts.
44. In contrast, it disputed the player’s entitlement to the other concepts claimed, as follows:
•
•
•
The air tickets for the player’s wife should not be granted because “he had never
brought a wife to South Africa”;
The claim for compensation “cannot be justified under the circumstances”; and
the claim for accommodation allowance for the period following the termination
“has no basis and legal justification” as he was no longer in South Africa.
45. The club made no request(s) for relief.
c. Rejoinder of the player
46. On 17 November 2022, the player submitted his rejoinder on this matter. In doing so, he
insisted on his argumentation regarding the lack of attention and due care of his injury. He
pointed out that the club failed to provide any documentation capable of supporting the
allegations that it adopted a diligent conduct towards him.
47. Furthermore, he outlined that the club acknowledged its default regarding many of the
payments due, including the salaries of July and August 2022. Likewise, he reiterated that
the club provided backdated documents and did not have interest in retaining his services,
hence that it gave cause to the termination.
48. Lastly, the player confirmed his argumentation as to the quantum claimed. In particular, he
alleged that (i) whether he took his wife to South Africa is not relevant insofar as the club’s
obligation to pay the correspondent flight tickets is stipulated in the Annexe, hence shall
be respected; and (ii) the accommodation and remaining flight tickets shall be factored as
part of the residual value of the contract, therefore awarded as compensation.
49. In light of the above, the player reiterated his requests for relief.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-7847
d. Final comments of the club
50. The club failed to submit its final comments on this matter within the deadline granted by
the FIFA general secretariat.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
51. 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 13 October 2022 and submitted
for decision on 23 March 2023. 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.
52. 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 par. 1 lit. b)
of the FIFA RSTP (October 2022 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 Bosnian player and a South African club.
53. 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 FIFA RSTP (October 2022 edition), and considering that the present claim was
lodged on 13 October 2022, the July 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
54. 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
55. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-7847
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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
56. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that it pertains to a claim for outstanding remuneration,
reimbursement of expenses, and compensation for breach of contract lodged by the player
against the club in connection with the employment relationship previously maintained
between them.
57. As a departure point, the Chamber acknowledged that, following the extensive exchanges
of correspondences between the parties in connection with an injury suffered by the
player, he terminated the employment relationship with the club due to overdue payables
on 26 September 2022.
58. In this context, the DRC highlighted that on 8 September 2022 the player put the club in
default due to his failure to pay inter alia his salaries of July and August 2022 (i.e., at least
two salaries) and granted it a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the breach, to no avail.
59. In contrast, the Chamber was also observant that the club not only confirmed having
received the abovementioned notice but also acknowledged its debt towards the player. In
doing so, the club referred to financial difficulties to justify its non-compliance, which the
DRC determined that could not considered as a valid reason not to comply with contractual
duties in line with the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal on the matter.
60. While considering the above, the Chamber was already satisfied with the conclusion that
the club’s persistent failure to comply with its financial duties justified the unilateral
termination of the employment relationship by the player in line with art. 14bis of the
Regulations, entailing that the parties’ position as to the injury itself and the player’s
consequent absence were immaterial to this analysis.
61. Notwithstanding the above and for the sake of completeness, the DRC also wished to
outline that, from the contents of the correspondences exchanged between the parties: (i)
the player was duly authorized by the club to treat his injury abroad until 27 July 2022; (ii)
subsequently, on 28 July 2022, the player requested for instructions regarding the next
steps; and (iii) the club did only reply to such letter on 23 August 2022, therefore
corroborating that his absence was justified and had never been contested. Consequently,
the Chamber felt even more comforted with the conclusion that the club’s position should
– in any scenario – be set aside.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-7847
62. Based on the foregoing, the DRC confirmed that the player had just cause to terminate the
employment relationship and the club should be liable to the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
63. 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 club.
64. First and foremost, the Chamber acknowledged that the player claimed to be entitled to
outstanding salaries, sell-on fees, and reimbursement of expenses – already overdue at
the time of the termination. Furthermore, the DRC pointed out that such concepts are
contractually based, supported by documentary evidence, and were confirmed by the club,
therefore shall be awarded as follows, together with the corresponding interest in line with
the player’s petition and the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal:
•
EUR 7,500 as sign-on fee, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022;
•
EUR 5,000 as the salary of July 2022, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2022;
•
EUR 5,000 as the salary of August 2022, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September
2022;
•
EUR 5,000 as the salary of September 2022, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
October 2022;
•
ZAR 13,423.75 as reimbursement of flight tickets, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26
January 2022;
•
ZAR 8,377 as reimbursement of flight tickets, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 April
2022;
•
EUR 220 as reimbursement of visa expenses plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 June
2021; and
•
EUR 3,560 as reimbursement of medical expenses plus 5% interest p.a. as from
the date of the claim (i.e., 13 October 2022) insofar as the player made a generic
request for interest and filed a myriad of proof of payments without a proper
breakdown.
65. 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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-7847
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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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 NSL
Contract and the Annexe from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 142,000 serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down
as follows:
•
•
•
•
EUR 45,000 as the salaries for the 2022/2023 season;
EUR 17,000 as sign-on fee for the 2022/2023 season;
EUR 60,000 as the salaries for the 2023/2024 season; and
EUR 20,000 as sign-on fee for the 2023/2024 season.
69. At this point, the DRC clarified that neither the accommodation allowance nor the flight
tickets mentioned by the player should be included in the calculation insofar as they were
not quantified in the Annexe (i.e., benefits in kind), hence have a speculative nature only.
The Chamber pointed out that such approach was also confirmed by CAS in different
opportunities (see, for example, CAS 2022/A/8707).
70. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-7847
71. Indeed, the player could not find a new employment following the termination of the
employment relationship with the club, hence did not mitigate the damages. The Chamber
also recalled that no additional compensation should be awarded in line with art. 17 par. 1
lit. ii) of the Regulations.
72. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR
142,000 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
73. 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 termination (i.e., 26 September 2022)
until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the player, 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 club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
77. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
78. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-7847
d. Costs
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-7847
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Igor Makitan, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, TS Galaxy FC, has to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 220 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 June 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- ZAR 13,423.75 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 January
2022 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 7,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
- ZAR 8,377 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 April 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 3,560 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 13 October 2022
until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 142,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 26 September 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:
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-7847
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. 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
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-7847
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. 18