Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4387
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 June 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Hrvoje
Milic
BY:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Gonzalo de Medinilla (Spain), member
Mario Flores Chemor (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
Hrvoje Milic, Croatia
Represented by Mr Hrvoje Raić and Mr Ivan Ostojić
RESPONDENT:
Esteghlal FC, Iran
Page 2
REF FPSD-4387
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 19 August 2019, the Croatian player, Mr Hrvoje Milic (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) and the Iranian club, Esteghlal FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 August
2019 until 30 July 2021.
2.
In accordance with clauses 3.1 to 3.6 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the
player -inter alia- the following remuneration:
For the season 2019/2020:
- USD 80,000 net as sign-on fee, payable by 30 August 2019;
- USD 120,000 net divided into 10 monthly salaries of USD 12,000 each (payable
as from September 2019 until June 2020) and due on the 10th day of the
following month to their accrual.
For the season 2020/2021:
- USD 65,000 net as lump sum, payable by 30 August 2020;
- USD 135,000 net divided into 12 monthly salaries of USD 11,250 each payable
as from July 2020 until June 2021) and due on the 10th day of the following
month to their accrual.
3.
According to clause 3.7 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player, inter
alia, the following variable remuneration:
-
“For match appearance of at least 15 minutes”:
USD 15,000 net in case of participation in more than 10 matches;
USD 25,000 net in case of participation in more than 20 matches;
USD 40,000 net in case of participation in more than 30 matches”.
The said clause further states that the above-mentioned bonus are not cumulative
and shall only be paid if the player was “in the team list (bench or line-up) for more
than 30% of the AFC matches”.
4.
In accordance with clause 3.10 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player,
in case of delay in the payment of any of the amounts payable as per the contract for
a period longer than 60 days (i.e. after a grace period of 60 days), a penalty of USD
5,000 per month of delay. In addition, the said clause provides that the player would
be entitled to receive a default interest at the rate of 5% p.a. in case of delay in
payment.
5.
Clauses 4.5 and 4.7 of the contract read as follows: “4.5 The player is obliged to
maintain the good name of the club and not perform any action that could undermine
Page 3
REF FPSD-4387
the club”; “4.7 The player shall not make any kind of interview or make comment in
the press media and any third party on a matter pertaining to the club and Iran
Football Federation”.
6.
Clause 5.5 of the contract reads as follows: “The club shall provide 3 round-trip tickets
to European destinations in Economy class, for the player and his family per season”.
7.
The player put the club in default on numerous occasions, the club only making partial
payments of the overdue amounts.
8.
In particular, on 14 June 2021, the player put the club in default of payment in the
amount of USD 568,750 net, corresponding to the unpaid part of the sign-on fee,
salaries and penalties due to the non-payment of salaries, thereby granting the club
a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default.
9.
Thereto, the club replied by means of its correspondence dated 22 June 202, whereby
the latter informed the player about the following:
-
-
That the player -who allegedly left Iran between the 24th of May and the 10th
of June 2021 without authorization from the club- has been sanctioned for
being absent during training sessions held between the 31st of May and the
10th of June 2021, the player being obliged to pay a fine of USD 30,000 to the
club;
That, during an interview allegedly given by the player on 21 May 2021, the
player breached clauses 4.5 and 4.7 of the contract;
That a disciplinary meeting -to which the player was thereby convoked- would
be held on 29 June 2021 in connection with the abovementioned contractual
violations allegedly committed by the player.
10. By means of his letter dated 28 June 2021, the player replied to the club rejecting its
allegations concerning any eventual disciplinary violation committed by the player.
Thereby, the player further stated that the head coach, “Mr Farhad Majidi, gave
permission to the player to leave IR of Iran in the period from 24/5/2021 until
10/6/2021, given that the Club did not have any official matches in said period”
(supporting documentation provided in this respect – page 83 of the statement of
claim). In addition, the player put the club -again- in default of payment in the amount
of USD 568,750 net plus interest and requesting the club to, inter alia, immediately:
reimburse flight tickets’ expenses and provide him with a furnished apartment;
however, to no avail.
11. By means of its notice dated 8 July 2021, the player unilaterally terminated the
contract. Following the termination of the contract, the player remained unemployed
during the residual term of the contract.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4387
II. Proceedings before FIFA
a. Position of the Claimant
12. On 25 November 2021, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA,
requesting to be awarded outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach
of contract in the total amount of USD 591,250 net and EUR 4,715, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from the respective due dates of the amounts requested, broken down by the
Claimant as follows:
Outstanding remuneration: USD 582,903 net and EUR 4,715
-
-
USD 12,500 net as unpaid part of the lump sum payable by 30 August 2020;
USD 112,500 net corresponding to the salaries due as from September 2020
until June 2021, i.e. 10 salaries of USD 11,250 net each;
USD 2,903 net corresponding to the salary due between the 1st and the 8th of
July 2021 (calculated by the Claimant himself on a pro-rata basis);
USD 40,000 net as match appearance bonuses, insofar as the player made
more than 30 appearances, of at least 15 minutes each, in official matches;
“USD 415,000 in accordance with the article 3.10 of the Employment contract,
consisted of total 22 delays (22 x USD 5,000.00) in payment of salaries and
bonuses and benefits for more than 60 days upon maturity date plus 61
additional penalties for each subsequent month delay after penalty was
initially triggered (61 x USD 5,000.00)” (see page 12 of the statement of claim
for specific breakdown provided by the Claimant);
EUR 4,715 as “reimbursement of the costs for plane tickets purchased in March
2021 and June 2021”.
Compensation for breach of contract: USD 8,347 net
-
USD 8,347 net as compensation for breach of contract, comprehending -as
residual value of the contract- the term as from 9 July until 31 July 2021.
The player further requested the club be ordered “to provide tax certificates
showcasing that the said payments were duly executed”.
13. In his claim, the Claimant argued that “the Club severely breached the Employment
contract and acted in bad faith, which eventually led to the early termination of the
Employment contract with just cause by the Player in the sense of the article 14. and
14bis of the FIFA RSTP since at the moment of the issuance of the subject termination
letter, the Club was in debt towards the Player for almost all the remuneration related
to the season 2020/2021”.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4387
b. Position of the Respondent
14. In its reply, the club referred to specific behaviours of the player, which led to the
initiation of 5 separate disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant. In particular,
the sum of all the fines imposed by the disciplinary committee of the club within the
scope of the said proceedings amount to USD 124,000. Brief descriptions of the said
disciplinary proceedings are displayed here below:
A. Following a comment made by the player on a website called “Varsesh3” with
regards to the club, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 22 June 2021
and terminated in September 2021, with the decision issued by the Appeal
Committee of the club. In accordance with the decision issued by the said body,
the player was imposed a fine of USD 14,000, which was to be deducted by the
club from the player’s financial entitlements.
B. In addition, the club explained that separate disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the player due to his alleged unauthorized absence between
the 31st of May and the 10th of June 2021. In this respect, the club argues that,
within the scope of the disciplinary proceedings -initiated on 22 June 2021- a
final decision, also issued by the Appeal Committee of the club in September
2021, condemned the player to pay a fine of USD 30,000, which was also to be
deducted from the player’s financial entitlements.
C. Moreover, the club explained that a third disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against the player following a meeting held on 7 July 2021 between the player
and the club’s “international affairs deputy”, during which the player allegedly
insulted the said individual. In particular, the club stressed that the player
referred to him as “liar” and “motherfucker”. In this respect, the club explained
that disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 10 July 2021 and that the final
decision issued by the Appeal Committee of the club in September 2021
condemned the player to pay a fine of USD 40,000 to the club.
D. Following an interview given by the player on a TV show called “Football Bartar”,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 17 July 2021 and terminated in
September 2021, with the decision issued by the Appeal Committee of the club.
In accordance with the decision issued by the said body, the club was imposed
a fine of USD 20,000, which was to be deducted by the club from the player’s
financial entitlements.
E. Following an interview given by the player on an internet show called
“Dalmatinski”, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 17 July 2021 and
terminated in September 2021, with the decision issued by the Appeal
Committee of the club. In accordance with the decision issued by the said body,
Page 6
REF FPSD-4387
the club was imposed a fine of USD 20,000, which was to be deducted by the
club from the player’s financial entitlements.
15. The above being explained, the Respondent wished to note that the amount of USD
124,000 shall be deemed as lawfully deducted from the player’s financial dues.
Concerning the claim of the Claimant to receive his moneys net, the Respondent held
that, even though the club had the obligation to pay taxes, the said obligation only
concerns taxes due in Iran, not abroad. Thus, the Respondent requested the claim of
the Claimant regarding payment obligations in the “country of residence” of the player
be rejected.
16. As for the outstanding amounts due to the player, the Respondent held that for the
season 2019/2020, the player received all his financial dues. As for the fixed
remuneration due for the season 2020/2021, in the amount of USD 200,000, the
Respondent holds having paid the total amount of USD 114,000.
17. In connection with the difference between the amount due and the amount paid, the
Respondent held that it was lawfully deducted by the club, insofar as it was entitled
to deduct an amount even higher, i.e. USD 124,000, by virtue of the disciplinary
decisions issued by the club’s Appeal Committee. Thus, the Respondent requested
the Claimant’s claim to be rejected.
18. Subsidiary to the above, while referring to clause 3.10 of the contract, the club
underscored that the penalties requested by the Claimant are disproportionate. In
this context, the club referred to art. 163.1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations and
argued that the penalties requested, in the amount of USD 415,000 shall be reduced.
19. Also subsidiary to the above, should the DRC consider that clause 3.10 of the contract
applies, the Respondent made his own calculations considering the delay in the
payment of the player’s remuneration and underscored that only an amount of USD
100,000 would be payable as penalties.
20. However, the Respondent held that the said amount is also disproportionate and
excessive and, hence, shall be not awarded or, subsidiary, reduced.
III. Considerations of the Disciplinary Committee
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. First of all, the Disciplinary Committee (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 25 November 2021 and
Page 7
REF FPSD-4387
submitted for decision on 23 June 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of
the June 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.
22. 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
Croatian player and an Iranian club.
23. 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 (June 2020
edition) and, considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 November 2021,
the August 2021 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
24. 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
25. 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
26. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter and wished to briefly recall the main position of the parties. In doing so, the
Chamber observed that the Claimant is requesting to be awarded outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of USD
Page 8
REF FPSD-4387
591,250 net and EUR 4,715, plus 5% interest p.a., concerning lump sums, salaries,
bonuses, penalties and reimbursement of expenses (as outstanding remuneration)
and the residual value of the contract following the unilateral termination thereof (as
compensation for breach of contract).
27. The DRC further noted that the Claimant argues having unilaterally terminated the
contract with just cause on 8 July 2021, insofar as -at that moment in time and despite
having put the club in default of payment- the club was in default of payment of the
“almost all the remuneration” due to the player for the season 2020/2021.
28. On its part, continued the Chamber, the club argues having complied with all its
financial dues, having paid to the player the total amount of USD 114,000 as fixed
remuneration for the season 2020/2021. In this respect, the Respondent clarified that,
as per clause 3 of the contract, it undertook to pay to the Claimant the total fixed
remuneration of USD 200,000, but -following the player’s disciplinary violations- it
lawfully deducted an amount of USD 124,000 from the player’s financial entitlements
for the said season. Having said the above, the club maintained that the moneys
received by the player for the relevant season were even higher than the ones he
should have received following the deductions the club was entitled to apply due to
the disciplinary fines imposed on the Claimant.
Was the club entitled to deduct the amount of USD 124,000 from the player’s monetary
entitlements in view of the imposition of fines within the scope of the club’s disciplinary
proceedings?
29. Clause 4 of the contract contemplates the player’s contractual obligations, amongst
which the player’s duty to show respect to the club and not undermine the name of
the club are mentioned. It needs to be noted that -in principle- monetary deductions
shall not be imposed on player’s financial dues, unless expressly contemplated under
the contract or unless specifically provided by the club’s disciplinary regulations,
provided that there exists a contractual clause referring to the said disciplinary
regulations and the player’s acceptance to be bound thereto, which seems to be the
case (clause 4.2 of the contract states that the player would be bound by the club’s
Disciplinary Code and that a copy thereof had been delivered to the player).
30. Even in the aforementioned scenario, for the said monetary deductions to be
considered as rightfully practiced, the party imposing the fines (the club in casu), shall
demonstrate not only having respected the player’s right to be heard, but also shall it
provide the grounds on which the disciplinary body of the club has based its
judgement to impose any fine on the player, for the DRC to determine whether the
eventual fine was imposed in a proportionate and reasonable manner, in order to
prevent the situation where the player’s income is disproportionately reduced.
Page 9
REF FPSD-4387
31. In the present case, it needs to be highlighted that all the disciplinary proceedings
were initiated in June and July 2021, following the player’s default notice of 14 June
2022, leading to the logical hypothesis that the said proceedings could have been
initiated with the sole purpose of offsetting the club’s debts towards the player.
32. What is more, it is important to note that, in any case, disciplinary fines imposed on a
player -even if rightfully imposed- cannot be imposed on overdue payments, i.e. on
financial entitlements which payment is overdue. In the present case, the club argues
that, as a consequence of the disciplinary proceedings held in June and July 2021,
which decisions were rendered in September 2021, i.e. once the player had already
unilaterally terminated the contract, the club is entitled to offset the player’s salaries
of the season 2020/2021, which cannot be upheld.
33. In view of all of the above, the DRC determined that the argument of the club that it
lawfully deducted the amount of USD 124,000 from the player’s financial dues on the
grounds of disciplinary fines imposed on the player cannot be upheld.
Should the documentary evidence provided by the club as proof of payment of the player’s
financial dues be considered?
34. It needs to be noted that the club has provided, as proof of payment, different
documents: bank statements, documents produced by the club itself, as well as
payment receipts signed and fingerprinted by the player (allegedly).
35. In this context, whereas some of the documentary evidence provided by the club
pertains to amounts not claimed by the player (salaries and lump sums due prior to
August 2020), the club provided, inter alia, 5 documents displaying several amounts
allegedly paid to the player in May and October 2020. However, the said
documentation, despite displaying the name of the player as beneficiary, do not state
the consideration of the specific payments, which prevents the DRC from even
assessing whether the said documents can -as intended by the club- be considered
as valid proof of payment in connection with the amounts claimed by the player. In
addition, it needs to be noted that some of the said documents are not even
translated into one of the official FIFA languages.
36. In view of the above, the Chamber determined that the Respondent has not met its
burden of proof in accordance with the requirements set by art. 13.5 of the
Procedural Rules and, hence, the proof of payment provided by the club cannot be
taken into account.
What was the outstanding amount due to the player by 8 July 2022? Did the player
terminate the contract with just cause?
Page 10
REF FPSD-4387
37. In view of the above, the Claimant’s allegations pertaining to the club’s non-payment
of his financial dues for the season 2020/201 have not been satisfactorily challenged
by the club (in view of the unlawfulness of the monetary deductions made by the club
and the insufficient proof of payment provided by the latter).
38. Whereas the player’s entitlement to receive his monthly salaries and lump sums /
sign-on fees does not require for any further evidence to be produced by the Claimant
apart from a contractual basis, it needs to be noted that the Claimant is also
requesting to be awarded bonuses, penalties and reimbursement of expenses, which
require further proof.
39. As for the bonuses requested, clause 3.7 of the contract provides that the player
would be entitled to a bonus of USD 40,000 net, provided that he played in at least 30
official games for at least 15 minutes during the relevant season. As per the
documentation provided by the Claimant, i.e. transfermarkt records, the player
participated in more than 30 official games for at least 15 minutes each appearance
during the season 2020/2021. Thus, the DRC determined that the Claimant is entitled
thereto.
40. In connection with the penalty of USD 415,000 requested by the Claimant ex. clause
3.10 of the contract, it needs to be stressed that the said clause provides that the
player, after a grace period of 60 days, would be entitled to a penalty of USD 5,000
per month of delay in any payment due by the club. In this respect, it needs to be
highlighted that, whenever the payment of a penalty is triggered in connection with a
default of payment that persist in time (i.e. it is not only paid once but increases along
with the non-payment over time), the DRC jurisprudence tends to consider those
obligations as hidden interest rates rather than penalties. Thus, if so considered, the
said penalty would amount to a rate higher than the maximum interest rate permitted
under Swiss Law and under the DRC jurisprudence, i.e. a default interest of 18% p.a.
In view of the above, the Chamber determined that the amount claimed by the player
as penalty shall be considered as a hidden interest rate and reduced to the
abovementioned rate, i.e. 18% on the outstanding moneys.
41. In addition, it needs to be noted that, as per the DRC jurisprudence, grace periods
allowing a party to be in default of payment shall be considered null and void.
42. Thus, the grace period of 60 days set by clause 3.10 of the contract shall be
disregarded and the default interest awarded shall have, as dies a quo, the day
following the respective due date of each payment.
43. As to the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 4,715 in connection with flight tickets
purchased in March 2021 and June 2021, it needs to be noted that clause 5.5 of the
contract states that the club shall provide 3 round-trip tickets to European
Page 11
REF FPSD-4387
destinations in Economy class, for the player and his family per season. As per the
documentary evidence provided by the club, the player travelled from Zagreb to
Teheran (through Istanbul) in March 2021 (one way ticket) and from Ahmadabad (Iran)
to Belgrade (Serbia) (trough Istanbul) and again to Ahmadabad in June 2021 (return
ticket). In view of the above, considering that the reimbursement pertains to travels
made from Iran to European cities in compliance with clause 5.5 of the contract, the
Chamber concluded that the said amount shall be reimbursed to the Claimant.
44. Thus, considering that the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment by
means of his letter dated 14 June 2021, at a time when at least 8 monthly salaries (the
ones due between September 2020 and May 2021) were outstanding and taking into
account that the Claimant granted the Respondent a 15 days’ deadline to cure its
breach without the latter doing so, the DRC decided that the Claimant terminated the
contract with just cause ex. clause 14bis of the Regulations on 8 July 2021.
ii. Consequences
45. 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.
46. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are
equivalent to USD 165,000 net and EUR 4,715.
47. 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 165,000 net and EUR 4,715.
48. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the abovementioned considerations in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the
Claimant interest at the rate of 18% p.a. concerning the amounts claimed by the
Claimant as outstanding salaries and bonus and at the rate of 5% concerning the
reimbursement of the flight tickets requested as from their respective due dates
until the date of effective payment.
49. 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-4387
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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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 11,250 serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the player did not sign any new contract
following the termination of the contract at stake and, hence, the player was not
able to mitigate his damages.
56. 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 11,250 as compensation for breach of contract to the player (i.e. the
residual value of the contract) which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
Page 13
REF FPSD-4387
57. 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 on which the claim was lodged,
i.e. as from 25 November 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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
63. 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.
Page 14
REF FPSD-4387
64. 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.
65. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Hrvoje Milic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Esteghlal FC, has to pay to the Claimant, outstanding remuneration
in the total amount of USD 165,000 net and EUR 4,715, plus default interest, as follows:
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 12,500, as from 1 September 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 October 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 November 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 December 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 January 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 February 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
Page 15
REF FPSD-4387
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 March 2021 until the
date of effective payment;
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 April 2021 until the
date of effective payment;
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 May 2021 until the
date of effective payment;
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 June 2021 until the
date of effective payment;
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,250, as from 1 July 2021 until the
date of effective payment;
-
18% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 40,000, as from 9 July 2021 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 4,715, as from 25 November 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
3.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in
the total amount of USD 11,250 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 November 2021
until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full
payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification
of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration the ban shall be of 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.
Page 16
REF FPSD-4387
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in
accordance with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
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 17