Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12475
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 January 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player CÉSAR MEZA
COLLI
COMPOSITION:
Clifford HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Angela COLLINS (Australia), member
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
CÉSAR MEZA COLLI, Paraguay
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT:
Ohod, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Global Sport Consulting
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12475
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 June 2023, the Saudi club, Ohod (hereinafter: Respondent or club) made an offer
(hereinafter: “offer”) to the Paraguazan player Cesar Daniel Meza Colli, (hereinafter:
Claimant or player), which, stipulated the following:
“2023/06/06
offer for football professional player (Cesar Daniel Meza Colli) Paraguay nationality
:Duration contract from 2024•06·14 • 2023•07-15 as: { season 2023 / 2024 )
the total contract J 200 000 ) two hundred thousand dollars
- The contract payment is (20.000) twenty thousand dollars after signing the contract•
- The salary is:(16,633 Sixteen thousand six hundred and thirty-three dollars
- ohod club shall be solely responsible for the payment of all of salaries for player.
( fringe benefits, travels and lodging expenses) after the term of this transfer
.The club will provide the player a furnished accommodation.The club will provide the player a suitable car for transportation.The club will provide the player 3 economy tickets and Visas for him and his family.The player will get winning bonuses according to the dub policy.The club pays the player a promotion bonus to the Premier League 20,000 twenty thousand dollars
and 10,000 ten thousand dollars if the player participates in 15 goals
This offer will not considered until the fulfillment of the following conditions; if the player arrives
to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, passes the medical and the physical checkup and after contract
signature
.This offer Is valid until 07/06/2023 At 23:59 GMT”
2.
According to the player following the proposal, the parties concluded an employment
contract valid as from 13 July 2023 until 14 June 2024, entitling him to a monthly salary of
USD 16,363.
3.
According to the player following his arrival at the club and during the pre-season training
in Egypt he suffered an injury to his knee, whereafter he reached an agreement with the
club to be allowed “to travel to Paraguay, to be operated by a doctor of his trust, and comeback
in 20 days”, in this regard the player underwent surgery and paid the expenses in the
amount of USD 7,000.
4.
On 31 August 2023, the player informed the club that he was ready to return to the club,
however in the meantime there was an administration change in the club, following the
arrival of a new president, who did not want to continue the employment relationship with
the player, the player therefore tried to reach a mutual termination agreement with the
club whereupon the parties agreed to terminate the contract, for payment of the amount
of USD 47,000 net corresponding to two monthly salaries, plus the costs of the operation
to the knee and recovery and travel, however the club failed to send the termination
agreement to the player despite several request.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12475
5.
On 3 October 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment of
the amount of the amount of USD 39,726 net, granting it a deadline of 15 days.
6.
On 20 October 2023, the player sent a termination notice to the club.
7.
The player confirmed that he remained unemployed until today.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 1 November 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
9.
According to the Claimant, arguments Claimant. the player argued that the club failed to
send the termination agreement to the player despite several request.
10. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
- The Claim shall be accepted.
- The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall declare that the Player and the Club conclude and
signed an employment contract with the duration from 13-07-2023 until 12-06-2024
- The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall declare that the Player terminated the
employment contract concluded and signed with the Club with just cause
- The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the
Claimant:
- 17 days referred to the month of July 2023, in the amount of 9 272,36 USD dollars;
- Monthly salary of August 2023 in the amount of 16 363,00 USD dollars net
b. Position of the Respondent
11. According to the Respondent, mentioned that following the player`s injury he returned to
Paraguay without the club's authorisation.
12. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that player failed to return to Saudi Arabia after
completion of his medical treatment and requested the club to terminate the contract by
mutual agreement, accordingly, “the parties agreed verbally to terminate the contract
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12475
amicably by paying a total amount of 47.000 USD including two-month salaries and the costs of
treatment without fixing a deadline for the payment”
13. However, the club argued that “due to the election of a new board of the club which required
some banking procedures to modify the signatory person , the club did not proceed for the
payment of the amount agreed by the parties.”
14. In conclusion, the club mentioned the following:
-
-
the real intention of the player and the club was to terminate the contract by
mutual agreement.
All conditions of that agreement were discussed and fixed by both parties .
In this regard , the player expressly confirmed that he has the right to receive 47.000
USD and sent to the club his bank account for the payment.
The delay of payment by the club of the conventional amount did not affect the termination
of the contract by mutual agreement and in this case the player have only the right to claim the
amount already agreed .
In conclusion, article 17 of FIFA RSTP should not be apply in the present matter .
15. The club requested the following relief:
-
“To consider that the contract was terminated by mutual agreement and that the club is
responsible to pay only an amount of 47.000 USD already agreed between the parties”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12475
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. 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 1 November 2023 and
submitted for decision on 25 January 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.
17. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Paraguayan player and a Saudi
club.
18. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 November 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
19. 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
20. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12475
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
21. 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 the justice of the early
termination of the contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain
financial obligations by the Respondent.
22. The Chamber noted that the Respondent argued that the contract was amicably
terminated by mutual agreement.
23. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and whether the contract was terminated by mutual agreement.
24. In this context, the Chamber deemed it important to highlight that the parties are in
agreement that the:
-
club sent the offer to the player on 6 June 2023;
player was injured and departed for Paraguay following his injury; and
club underwent an administrative change, following which the parties negotiated a
settlement of USD 47,000
25. Following the above, the Chamber determined that the offer signed on 6 June 2023
between the parties clearly represented the basis of an employment relationship and also
contained all the essential elements of an employment contract, which created contractual
obligations for the parties. Furthermore, the Chamber highlighted that though the player
made reference to a further employment contract signed, he failed to provide sufficient
evidence to establish same.
26. On analysis of the documentation on file and in reference to the argument of the
Respondent regarding the alleged mutual termination of the employment contract, the
Chamber remarked that though it seems that the intention of the player was to find a
mutual agreement with the club, the terms of such agreement were never finalised
between the parties, neither are there any evidence on file of the acceptance of such terms
on account of the club, therefore based on the aforesaid the Chamber decided to reject
the argument of the club that the contract was terminated by mutual agreement.
27. In this context, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the basic principle of burden
of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party
that asserts a fact has the burden of proving it, which the club failed to do.
28. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his
remuneration corresponding to a period of at least two months. Furthermore, the Claimant
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12475
has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 3 October 2023,
i.e., at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 20 October 2023.
29. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the contract.
ii. Consequences
30. 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.
31. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent amounts to USD
58,483.77 net.
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., USD 58,
483.787 net (i.e., USD 8,584.77 as partial salary - July 2023 plus USD 16,363 times 3 – August,
September, and October 2023).
33. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
34. As to the medical expenses, the Chamber indicated that Claimant failed to submit proof of
the said expenses i.e., payment receipts of such expenses, therefore it decided to reject
this part of the claim.
35. 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.
36. 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
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12475
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.
37. 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.
38. 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 124,193.06 net (i.e. November 2023 until 14 June 2024)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
39. 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.
40. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
41. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
42. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 124,193.06 net, as the residual value of the contract.
43. 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 20 October 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12475
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12475
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, CÉSAR MEZA COLLI, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Ohod, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
(a) USD 58,483.77 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
respective due dates as follows:
-
On the amount of USD 8,584.77 as from 1 August 2023
On the amount of USD 16,363 as from 1 September 2023
On the amount of USD 16,363 as from 1 October 2023
On the amount of USD 16,363 as from 1 November 2023
(b) USD 124,193.06 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause
plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 October 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with 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. 11
REF. FPSD-12475
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
pg. 12