Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13043
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 18 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
José Luis Mendes de Andrade
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), member
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
José Luis Mendes de Andrade, Cape Verde Islands
Represented by Joao Filipe Lobao
RESPONDENT/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Qatar Sports Club, Qatar
Represented by MCA Sports Law LLP
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13043
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 January 2022, the Qatari club “Qatar SC” (hereinafter: the Club) entered into a written
contact with the Cape Verdean player Jose Luis Mendes De Andrade (hereinafter: the Player)
in order to discuss the potential conclusion of an employment contract for a period of 2,5
seasons.
2.
The Player and the Club shall hereinafter jointly be referred to as the parties.
3.
After several negotiations conducted via WhatsApp and e-mail, the parties concluded a
“Pre-Contract” effective from 1 February 2022, whose duration was subject to the
subsequent conclusion of an employment contract by the same parties.
4.
Pursuant to clause 1.1 of the Pre-Contract, the parties undertook to “enter into the NEW
employment CONTRACT with FIXED-TERM BETWEEN 2 July 2022 AND 30 June 2024”.
5.
In this respect, the parties also agreed on the following “preliminary conditions”:
“2.1 The parties undertake to sign the employment contract as set out in clause 1.1. above by no
later than 24h after having successfully passed all medical exams and obtained the pertinent
work permit, pursuant to the terms and conditions of clause 3 below.
3. medical examination and work permit:
3.1. Entry into new employment contract by the parties is conditional upon the player passing
all medical examinations which shall be carried out by doctors indicated by the club at time and
place to be nominated by the club at its sole discretion and obtaining the appropriate work
permit from the Qatari Public Authorities.
3.2 If the player doesn’t pass the medical examination(s) in Aspetar Hospital (Qatar) the club
shall have the right to terminate with immediate effect this agreement, as well as become
released to sign the new employment contract and the player shall have no right to claim or
receive any indemnities or payments hereunder from the club.
3.3 The player undertakes to perform the medical examinations referred to in clause 3.1 as soon
as shall be requested by the club and shall not, under any circumstances, deny or refrain from
making himself available for such purposes during the period commences between 20 June to 5
July 2022 in the abovementioned hospital. If the player does not comply with the terms of this
clause 3.1 the club shall be entitled to claim the compensation set out in clause 5 below”.
6.
Furthermore, under clause 4 of the Pre-Contract, the parties stipulated the duration and
financial value of the future employment contract as follows:
“Term:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13043
The two-year contract period (commencing on 2nd July 2022 and terminating 30 June 2024) in
accordance with the provisions of the final agreement that shall be signed later.
Remuneration:
•
The total value of this contract is EUR 3,100,000 (Three Million One Hundred Thousand Euros)
net, as it will be indicated in the fixed-term contract, for a total period of two sporting seasons
as follows:
First Year: EUR 1,700,000 (One Million Seven Hundred Euros) net due as wages (remuneration)
to be paid as follows:
• The sum of EUR 300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Euros), as a signing fee to be paid until
5th August 2022.
• An amount of EUR 1,400,000 (One Million Four Hundred Thousand Euros), to be paid
through 12 monthly and equal instalments starting on 5th August 2022.
Second Year: EUR 1,400,000 (One Million Four Hundred Euros) net due as wages (remuneration)
to be paid through 12 monthly and equal instalments, starting on 5th August 2023”.
7.
Lastly, in accordance with clause 7 of the Pre-Contract, the parties stipulated the following
“penalty clause”:
“7.1 The Parties agree that in the event the Player refuses to sign the New Employment Contract
as set out in clause 1.1 or to fulfill with the provisions set out in clause 3.3 above, the Club shall
be entitled to claim a compensation amount of EUR 5,000,000 (Five million Euros).
7.2 If the Club refuses to sign the New Employment Contract as set out in clause 1.1 or to fulfill
with the provisions set out in clause 3.3 above, the player shall be entitled to claim a
compensation amount of EUR 3,100,000 (Three million one hundred thousand Euros), without
any deduction whatsoever the reason”.
8.
On 2 February 2022, the Player concluded an employment contract with the Saudi club Al
Taawoun, effective from the same date until 30 June 2022 and for a total net remuneration
of EUR 650,000 (hereinafter: the Al Taawoun contract).
9.
On 9 March 2022, the Player’s representative informed the Club that the Player had been
performing well with Al Taawoun, and that, therefore, he was confident that he would have
also performed properly in Qatar. In reply, the Club acknowledged receipt of the
information as “great news” and stated: “Wish that and all of us will help”.
10. On 8 June 2022, the Club sent a message to the Player’s agent via WhatsApp, stating the
following:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13043
“Dear my friend
I hope you doing well
I really sorry for this message
But we don’t want to continue with our deal with Ze Luis.
Specially he didn’t play well last 4 months with his club.
So please let us close this deal and try to find another striker for us.
Regards”
11. Notwithstanding the above, on 3 July 2022, the Player contacted the Club via email,
confirming having concluded his employment relationship with Al Taawoun and being
ready to undergo the relevant medical examinations in line with the terms established
under art. 3 of the Pre-Contract.
12. On 5 July 2022, the Player underwent the relevant medical examinations at the Aspetar
Clinic.
13. On 13 July 2022, the Player sent an email to the Club urging the latter to execute its
obligations deriving from the Pre-Contract and thus asking to sign the relevant
employment agreement. Contextually, the Player granted the Club a deadline of 5 days,
warning the latter that in case of noncompliance the Player would have been free to sign a
new contract with any other club and the penalty cause stipulated under art. 7.2 of the PreContract would have been applicable.
14. On 18 July 2022, the Club replied to the Player’s email arguing having tried to contact the
Player’s agent during the previous days in order to arrange the Player’s arrival to Qatar.
15. On 19 July 2022, the Player replied to the Club confirming having passed the medical
examinations in Aspera clinic on 5 July 2022 and sent a copy of a document entitled
“Certificate of Pre-Participation Health Evaluation (PPHE)”. In the said document it was
reported that the Player had a “history of injury/illness that should be taken into account when
offering an employment contract”.
16. In this context, the Player requested the Club to reimburse all the expenses incurred during
his travel to Qatar as well as those related to the medical examinations. Moreover, the
Player requested the Club to send a copy of the “final agreement” in accordance with the
Pre- Contract.
17. On 20 July 2022, the Club sent an email to the Player declaring that it had not been informed
that the latter had already undergone the relevant medical examinations in Qatar. In this
context, the Club however contested the Player that he had failed to provide the actual
reports of the medical examinations, as the document sent by the Player appeared to be a
mere “cover letter” indicating, inter alia, that the Player had been assessed as having
suffered previous injury which would require a careful assessment by the Club. The Club
also objected to the Player that the latter should have first fulfilled the relevant conditions
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13043
agreed under the Pre-Contract in order to be able to sign the definitive employment
contract.
18. On 22 July, the Club sent a reminder to the Player, asking once again to be provided with
the relevant medical reports.
19. On 24 July 2024, the Club granted the Player a final deadline until 26 July 2022 to travel to
Qatar “in order to finalize all the procedures according to the Pre-Contract”.
20. On the same date, the Player confirmed the Club the content of his previous
communications and argued having already provided the relevant medical reports in
accordance with the Pre-Contract. The Player therefore granted the Club a final deadline
of 3 days to send a signed version of the final employment contract.
21. On 28 July 2022 the Player sent his banking coordinates to the Club, requesting the latter
to pay the relevant compensation under art. 7.2 of the Pre-Contract.
22. On 1 August and 16 August 2022, the Club formally notified the Player of a breach of the
terms of the Pre-Contract, alleging the Player’s lack of collaboration in spite of the Club’s
repeated requests during the month of July 2022.
23. On 7 September 2022, the Player signed a new employment contract with the Turkish club
Hatayspor, effective from the same date until 31 May 2023.
24. Subsequently, the Player signed a further employment contract with the Portuguese club
SC Farense valid from 29 August 2023 until 30 June 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
25. On 14 December 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
26. According to the Player, the Club failed to comply with its obligations under the PreContract, namely by failing to sign the relevant employment contract in July 2022.
27. In this respect, the Player stated having diligently complied with each of his duties
established under the Pre-Contract, in particular by (i) limiting the duration of his previous
employment contract with Al Taawoun up to the supposed date of entry into force of the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13043
relevant contract with the Club as well as by (ii) undergoing the relevant medical
examinations stipulated under the Pre-Contract by his own initiative and financial means.
28. Furthermore, the Player accused the Club of acting in bad faith by ignoring all the emails
and messages sent by the Player prior to and after the medical examinations, as well as
refusing to sign the relevant employment contract on the basis of unproven poor sporting
performance by the Player.
29. Finally, the Player sustained that the Pre-Contract actually contains all the essentialia negotii
to be deemed as a valid and binding employment contract. Hence, its validity could not be
made subject to the result of administrative issues such as a medical examination.
30. Accordingly, the Player held that the Club acted in breach of its contractual duties and shall
pay the relevant compensation under art. 7.2 of the Pre-Contract, for a total of EUR
3,100,000.
31. Subsidiarily, the Player asked that the same amount shall be due by the Club even in case
the Pre-Contract had not been considered as a valid and binding employment contract by
the FIFA DRC.
32. Lastly, the Player claimed a 5% interest per annum over the compensation running as from
8 June 2022.
b. Position of the Respondent
33. In its reply, the Club first argued that the Pre-Contract does not represent the final
employment agreement that the Parties should have signed in July 2022. Rather, and
according to the mutual will of the parties, in the Club’s view, the Pre-Contract was elected
by the Parties as an instrument to establish a basis for a potential, future labour
relationship.
34. The Club also pointed out that the period of validity and duration of the Pre-Contract would
clearly diverge from those fixed under the relevant employment contract.
35. Furthermore, the Club emphasized that the Player had violated his obligations (i) “to keep
himself in good physical conditions prior to execution of the New Employment Contract” and (ii)
to pass the relevant medical examinations after undergoing these without informing the
Club nor allowing the Club to assist.
36. Finally, the Club excluded any culpa in contrahendo from his part, arguing that the Player
de facto never suffered any damage as a result ofthe employment contract never being
signed due to the fact that both before and after the alleged termination the Player had
remained employed with other clubs, hence he had kept being remunerated for his
performance as professional player.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13043
37. Accordingly, in the Club’s view, the Player would have no title to claim a compensation for
breach of the employment contract as this had indeed never entered into force due to the
Player’s fault, while the latter had failed to respect his obligations under the Pre-Contract.
38. In this context, the Club also contested the Player’s decision to lodge a claim after 1 years
and a half from the alleged termination only, thus inducing the Club to solidify its
expectations of an acceptance by the Player of the Club's position.
39. In conclusion, the Club pleaded to reject the Player’s claim in its entirety.
c. Player’s rejoinder
40. In replica to the Club, the Player emphasized the apparently contradicting behavior of the
Club, arguing that the latter had first declared having lost interest in the Player’ services
due to alleged poor sporting performance on 8 June 2022, and subsequently stated that
the Player had violated his duties to undergo the relevant medical examinations in July
2022.
41. In the Player’s view, at the time he underwent the relevant medical examinations, the Club
was no longer be interested in the Player’ services. Thus, the Club would have merely
attempted to find an excuse to escape its contractual obligations.
42. Accordingly, in the Player’s opinion, the Club failed to sustain its burden of proof to justify
the reasons for terminating the Pre-Contract.
43. Furthermore, the Player held that the parties’ decision to stipulate a penalty clause under
the Pre-Contract, which equaled what was declared to be the total value of the employment
contract, would further corroborate that both parties had already agreed on signing a
definitive employment contract in January 2022
44. In this respect, the Player added that the only reason for postponing the signing of the
relevant employment agreement was that, due to the peculiar regulations of the Qatari
Football Association on foreign quotas, the Club would not have been allowed to register
more than 5 foreign players at the same time.Therefore, the Club would have had no
alternative but to wait until July 2022 in order to register the Player.
45. As a consequence, the Player stated that both Parties’ commitment was absolute as from
the signing of the Pre-Contract and insisted on the binding nature of the latter, thus
upholding his claim.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13043
d. Club’s final comments
46. In its final submission, the Club insisted that the Player would be estopped from claiming
any amount under the Pre-Contract based on his previous conduct, and that, in any event,
the Pre-Contract does not constitute a proper employment contract, as it was never
intended as such.
47. The Club further argued that, in spite of the difficulties and miscommunication faced by
the Parties, in July 2022 there was still an interest in discussing a potential employment
relationship. However, the Player failed to carry out his medical examinations within the
terms stipulated under the Pre-Contract and, in particular, without the Club’s knowledge.
48. Furthermore, the Club held that the Player failed to collaborate with the Club, thus
preventing the latter from completing the relevant procedures prior to signing a potential,
future employment contract. Conversely, in the Club’s view, the Player acted in bad faith
by directly requesting payment of compensation from the Club – even though the latter
had undertaken many attempts to bring the Player to Qatar and to complete the Player’s
registration.
49. Accordingly, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player, stating that it was the Player
who breached the Pre-Contract and shall therefore pay the relevant compensation
stipulated under art. 7.1 of said document.
50. In conclusion, the Club’s request for relief was to order the Player to pay a total of EUR
5,000,000 as compensation plus 5% interest on the said amount running from 19 March
2024 until the date of effective payment.
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 14 December 2023 and
submitted for decision on 18 April 2024. 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13043
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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 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 Cape Verdean
player and a Qatari club.
53. Notwithstanding the above, and before delving into the substance of the matter, the
Chamber wished to emphasize the existence of a preliminary issue concerning the
counterclaim lodged by the Club.
54. In particular, the Chamber referred to the second round of submissions to which the
parties were invited by the FIFA general secretariat and noted that the Club lodged a
counterclaim to the Player’s claim in its second submission only.
55. In this respect, the Chamber wished to refer to art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which “The respondent(s) may submit a counterclaim with their response to the
claim. A counterclaim shall have the same form as a claim and shall be submitted within the
same time limit as that for the response to the claim”.
56. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber assessed that the Club did not submit its
counterclaim when invited to provide its response to the claim, but only at a later stage of
the proceedings, i.e., after FIFA had discretionally opted for a second round of submissions.
57. The Chamber therefore emphasized that, in doing so, the Club was precluded from
advancing further arguments in relation to the Player's complaint.
58. On account of the above, the Chamber determined that the Club’s counterclaim shall be
inadmissible.
59. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 February 2023, the May 2023 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
60. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13043
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
61. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
62. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties’ first fundamental disagreement is
whether the document concluded between them on 1 February 2022 can be considered as
a valid and binding employment contract.
63. In particular, the Chamber noted that, on one hand, the Club alleges having merely signed
a pre-contract, i.e. a preliminary agreement for the potential signing of a future
employment contract, and that, therefore, it could be validly made subject to the Player’s
results in the relevant medical examinations. On the other hand, the Player rebutted that
said document would de facto constitute the formal basis for the employment relationship
between the parties and that its entry into force was postponed for the sole reason of
allowing the Club to respect the relevant regulations governing the registration of foreign
players in Qatar.
64. In this context, the Chamber recalled the wording of art. 18 par.4 of the Regulations, which
states that “the validity of a contract may not be made subject to a successful medical
examination and/or the grant of a work permit”.
65. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that, unlike employment contracts, it may be
acceptable, in line with FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, to make a “draft contract” or “precontract” subject to a successful medical examination, because a final employment
contract is different from a “pre-contract” 1.
66. In the case at stake, the Chamber observed that the Club indeed objected to the entry into
force of the employment relationship with the Player alleging the latter’s failure to comply
Inter alia, CAS 2016/A/4489, and FIFA Commentary on the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (ed. 2023), p. 237.
1
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13043
with the relevant terms and conditions related to his medical examinations based on clause
3 of the Pre-Contract.
67. The Chamber therefore assessed that determining the actual nature of the agreement
referred to by the parties as “Pre-Contract” was of paramount importance in order to
establish whether the Club would be - in principle - entitled to refuse entering into a binding
employment relationship with the Player based on the latter’s allegedly negative results in
the relevant medical examinations or failure to undergo them.
68. In this respect, the DRC remarked that such assessment of the aforementioned document
shall be conducted regardless of the title given by the parties to it and on the basis of the
specific circumstances of the case.
69. The Chamber also pointed out that, as per CAS’s well-established jurisprudence, any
assumption that an agreement is a “pre-contract” rather than a final contract, should be
made with appropriate caution in order to avoid any risk of abuse and possible
circumventions of art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations to the detriment of a player., and only
where factual evidence indicates that the parties genuinely intended to conduct further
negotiations after the player had undergone the medical examination and before the “final
contract” was entered into. Otherwise, making the agreement contingent upon a successful
medical exam is likely to be deemed unacceptable on the basis that the agreement could
be interpreted as a final contract as opposed to a pre-contract 2.
70. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber recalled its well-established jurisprudence dictating
that, in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from
the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the essentialia
negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their role, the
duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration payable by the employer
to the employee.
71. In casu, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber concluded
that all such elements were included in the document filed by the Player. In other words,
the Chamber understood that the legal document concluded by the parties (i.e., the PreContract) indeed included all the relevant information at the basis of an employment
relationship between contractual parties. Specifically, the document contains the signature
of both parties, provides for the duration of the employment relationship and the
remuneration payable to the Player. Moreover, it clearly stipulates that the Player is
employed as a footballer with the Club.
72. On top of the above, the Chamber noted that the agreement provides for further elements
of relevance within the scope of properly defining an employment relationship, such as the
commissions to be paid to the Player’s agent, which were not subject to the signing of any
2
See CAS 2008/A/1589.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13043
further subsequent contract, as well as the commercial exploration of the Player’s image
rights and the Club’s obligations related to the relevant insurance policy against the Player’s
potential inability to play.
73. With the foregoing in mind, and taking into account the intense exchange of
correspondence between the parties during January 2022, the Chamber was of the opinion
that the parties had evidently not limited the scope of their lengthy negotiations to the
mere exploration of potential employment opportunities for the future nor to a superficial
commitment to sign an employment contract whose details should have been discussed
at a later stage, but had instead already set the entire framework governing the relevant
labour relationship.
74. In this context, the Chamber also recalled that, prior to signing the Pre-Contract on 1
February 2022, the Player had already expressed his disagreement with regard to the
Club’s decision to include the relevant medical examinations as an essential condition for
the validity of the employment agreement, stating that his understanding was instead of
an irreversible commitment between the parties. Hence, the Player’ subsequent decision
to sign an employment contract with Al Taawoun valid until the entry into force of the “new
employment contract” with the Club.
75. The Chamber therefore concluded that the Pre-Contract is in fact a valid and binding
employment contract and shall be considered in the case at stake as the contractual basis
of the present dispute.
76. Having stated the above, the Chamber confirmed that the validity of the employment
agreement between the parties could not be made subject to the Player’s medical
examinations based on art. 18 par.4 of the Regulations. Hence, the Club would have no just
cause to refuse the execution of the employment contract with the Player in July 2022.
77. Independently from the above, and for the sake of clarity, the Chamber observed that on
8 June 2022, the Club had informed the Player’s agent that it was no longer interested in
the Player’ services and that it wanted “to sign another striker”.
78. In this context, the Chamber wished to highlight that despite of the Club’s allegations
regarding a persisting interest in the Player’ services at the time, the content of the message
submitted as evidence by the Player – and not contested by the Club -, would appear rather
self-explanatory and unequivocal.
79. In this respect, the Chamber recalled, in line with its long-standing jurisprudence, that a
player’s unsatisfactory performance cannot be a valid reason for an employer to cease
paying due salaries or terminate an employment contract, as this is a purely unilateral and
subjective evaluation by the club.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13043
80. Similarly, the Chamber emphasized that the Club would have no legal grounds to withdraw
from its contractual obligations to enter into an employment relationship with the Player
based on the alleged poor sporting performance of the latter with his former club, i.e., Al
Taawoun, on 8 June 2022.
81. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the Club had already breached the employment
agreement with the Player on 8 June 2022, whereas the Player seems to have attempted,
in good faith, to repristinate the status quo by undergoing the relevant medical
examinations in July 2022.However, this was to no avail, as at the time the Club further
refused to execute the relevant labour contract, once again in breach of its obligations
without just cause.
ii. Consequences
82. 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.
83. In this context, 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.
84. 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.
85. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of clause 7.2 of the contract, which
established that “If the Club refuses to sign the New Employment Contract as set out in clause
1.1 or to fulfill with the provisions set out in clause 3.3 above, the Player shall be entitled to claim
a compensation amount of EUR 3,100,000 (Three million one hundred thousand Euros), without
any deduction whatsoever the reason”.
86. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause within the context of the other
provisions governing the relevant agreement, the Chamber concluded that it fulfilled the
criteria of reciprocity and proportionality, in line with the longstanding jurisprudence of the
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13043
Football Tribunal, and therefore was to be applied in the case at hand to determine the
amount of compensation payable by the Club to the Player.
87. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Club must compensate the Player in the
amount of EUR 3,100,000, as per the compensation clause agreed between the parties in
the contract.
88. 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 Claimant interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 8 June 2022 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
92. 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.
93. 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. 15
REF. FPSD-13043
d. Costs
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-13043
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, José Luis Mendes de Andrade, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant, Qatar Sports Club, must pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent EUR 3,100,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8 June 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant is inadmissible.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent/Counterclaimant 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/CounterRespondent 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-13043
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