Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-348
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 June 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Álvaro Negredo
Sánchez
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairman
Mohamed Muzammil (Singapore), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
Álvaro Negredo Sánchez, Spain
Represented by Mr Ramón Valencia Clars
RESPONDENT:
Al Nasr SC, United Arab Emirates
Represented by Mr Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
Page 2 of 16
REF FPSD-348
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 17 September 2018, the Spanish player, Mr Álvaro Negredo Sánchez (hereinafter: the
player or the Claimant) and the Emirati club, Al Nasr SC (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent), concluded an employment contract, valid as from 17 September 2018 until 8
July 2020, whereby the player was entitled, inter alia, to the following benefits:
EUR 7,585,950, consisting of:
o 7 instalments in the aggregate amount of EUR 2,500,000;
o 22 equal monthly payments in the aggregate amount of EUR 5,000,000
(instalments payable as from September 2018 until June 2020);
o An annual housing allowance in the amount of EUR 85,950.
Tuition payments for 2 children and 6 business class air travel tickets Dubai-SpainDubai for the player and his family.
2.
In accordance with clause 3.4 of the contract, the club also undertook to pay to the player,
inter alia, a bonus in the amount of EUR 100,000, should the club win the Arab Gulf Cup.
3.
In accordance with clause 8 of the contract, the parties agreed to submit any dispute arising
from the contract to the jurisdiction of FIFA bodies. In addition, the parties agreed that the
contract would be governed by “FIFA Statutes and Transfer of Player of FIFA Regulations”.
4.
According to clause 3.9 of the contract, all amounts payable to the player thereunder shall
be net.
5.
On 15 March 2020, the United Arab Emirates Football Association (hereinafter: the UAEFA)
announced that all competitions organized by the UAE Pro League would be suspended as
from 15 March 2020 for a period of 4 weeks.
6.
By means of its letter dated 15 May 2020, the club informed the player that the Covid-19
pandemic had a severe financial impact on the club and, therefore, the latter requested the
player to accept a 40% salary reduction of his monthly salaries as from April 2020 onwards
(note: document on file).
7.
On 16 May 2020, the club had a meeting with the players of the team, explaining them the
situation and asking them to provide the club with their position as to the proposal
concerning the salary reduction within the following 5 days.
In the absence of acceptance by the player, on 22, 23 and 27 May 2020, the club requested
the player to present its comments as to the aforementioned proposal.
8.
Page 3 of 16
REF FPSD-348
9.
On 12 April 2020, the UAEFA issued a circular (no. 1516/2020), whereby the said body
informed its stakeholders, inter alia, about the following:
“First: Contracts of national professional players and coaches
[…]
2. Professional League clubs may deduct a percentage of a maximum of 40% of the salaries
of national players and coaches, provided that the minimum salary for the player or coach
after deduction is not less than AED 15,000 per month. The deduction does not apply to
players and coaches whose salaries are less than AED 15,000 monthly.
[…].
4. The same deduction percentage shall be applied to all players of the club in a fair and
equal manner and without discrimination among them, taking into account the minimum
monthly salary of the player or coach.
The decision shall be applied from the date of the cessation of sports activity on 15/03/2020
according to letter No. 1271/2020 issued by the United Arab Emirates Football Association
until the end of the crisis or the return of sports activity in any way, whichever is earlier.
Second: Contracts of foreign players / coaches:
Clubs have the right to negotiate with players/coaches what they deem to be in theirs best
interest, taking into account the mechanism established by the FIFA, the application of
relevant FIFA regulations, and any rules or guidelines issued by it regarding contracts and
salaries of foreign players/coaches”.
10.
Thereafter, on 1 June 2020, the club sent a document dated 30 May 2020 to the player for
the latter to sign it. In accordance with the said document, the club would apply a reduction
of 30% of the player´s monthly salaries as from 1 April 2020 until the date on which the
competition is resumed.
11.
On 22 June 2020, the UAEFA communicated its decision to cancel all the competitions,
including the 2020 Arab Gulf League, as a consequence of the Covid-19 outbreak.
12.
By means of his correspondence dated 10 August 2020, the player rejected the proposal of
the club, insofar it was unilateral and outside of any legal framework or any bargaining
agreement. In addition, the player put the club in default of payment in the amount of EUR
140,838, thereby granting the club a 10 days´ deadline to remedy the default.
13.
Thereto, the club replied on 13 August 2020, insisting in the legality of the proposal
regarding the salary reduction to be practiced on the player´s salaries, referring, inter alia,
to the FIFA Covid-19 guidelines. In this correspondence, the club made a breakdown
regarding the moneys deducted from the player´s salaries as from April 2020 until the date
of expiration of the contract, in the total amount of EUR 247,887.
14.
Thereto, the club replied on 13 August 2020, insisting in the legality of the proposal
regarding the salary reduction to be practiced on the player´s salaries, referring, inter alia,
to the FIFA Covid-19 guidelines. In this correspondence, the club made a breakdown
Page 4 of 16
REF FPSD-348
regarding the moneys deducted from the player´s salaries as from April 2020 until the date
of expiration of the contract, in the total amount of EUR 247,887.
15.
Thereafter, given the disconformity of the player, the parties entered into negotiations
aimed at avoiding any legal proceedings. In this context, on 6 October 2020, the club made
a payment of EUR 61,398 in favour of the player; payment which consideration was: bonus
for having won the Tournament “Arabian Gulf Cup 19-20”.
16.
Also on 6 October 2020, the club provided the player with a document dated 5 October
2020 (hereinafter referred to as: the liquidation balance), where the club stated the
amounts due to the player in accordance with the contract and the amounts effectively paid
to the player. In particular, the said document states that the difference between the said
considerations amounts to EUR 298,055, which are broken down by the club as follows:
II.
EUR 36,330, retained by the club to cover the expenses incurred upon the player´s
registration for the season 2019/2020;
EUR 70,356, retained by the club as reduction of the monthly salary of April 2020;
EUR 70,482, retained by the club as reduction of the monthly salary of May 2020;
EUR 109,225, retained by the club as reduction of the monthly salaries of June and
July 2020;
EUR 8,634, retained by the club as minor reductions for the months of November
2018, December 2018 and December 2019.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
a.
17.
The claim of the Claimant
On 11 November 2020, the player lodged a claim against the club, requesting to be
awarded outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 336,657, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from their respective due dates until the date of effective payment, as well as EUR
3,365 as legal fees, broken down by the player as follows:
EUR 298,055 corresponding to the reductions unlawfully practiced by the club (cf.
point 16 above for breakdown);
EUR 38,602 corresponding to the reduction practiced on the bonus for having won
the Arab Gulf Cup 2019/2020. In this respect, the player argued that, in accordance
with clause 3.9 of the contract, all amounts due to him were net and that,
nevertheless, the club only made a payment of EUR 61,398 as bonus for having won
Page 5 of 16
REF FPSD-348
the referred Cup, even though the bonus payable amounted to EUR 100,000
(100,000 – 61,398 = 38,602); (cf. points 2 and 15 above);
EUR 3,365 as legal fees.
18.
In his claim, the Claimant argued that the monetary reductions practiced by the Respondent
were unilaterally applied and, therefore, were not imposed in accordance with the FIFA
Covid-19 guidelines, nor in accordance with the UEFA decision 1271/2020.
19.
In addition, the player stressed that no collective bargaining agreement was ever concluded
and that the club is only basing the unilateral reductions practiced on the applicability of
national law and on the application of force majeure.
20.
In this respect, the Claimant referred to clause 8 of the contract and held that national law
shall not apply to the contract, insofar –in the aforementioned clause– the parties expressly
agreed on the applicability of the FIFA regulations to any dispute arisen between the parties
as per the contract.
19.
What is more, the player wished to highlight that, not only failed the club to enter into
negotiations with him, but also contested the alleged situation of financial distress the club
is going through. In addition, the player held that as per the proposal of the club (cf. point
9 above), the monetary reductions would be practiced to the salaries accrued as from April
2020 until the date on which the competition is resumed, which –according to the
Claimant– was until the expiry of the contract, insofar the competition was never resumed
during the relevant season.
b.
Position of the Respondent
21.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent acknowledged having contacted the player in order
to “re-schedule the payment of part of the remuneration established in the Employment
Contract”.
22.
In this context, the Respondent argued that the UAEFA issued the Circular no. 1516/2020
dated 12 April 2020 (hereinafter referred to as: the UAEFA Circular) whereby Emirati clubs
were allowed to impose a 40% reduction of salaries of all national players earning amounts
above AED 15,000 (approx.: EUR 3,350) for the remainder of the 2019/2020 season.
23.
As per the Respondent, the UAEFA Circular also stated that clubs had the right to negotiate
reduction of salaries of foreign (international) players/coaches in their best interest while
considering the mechanism established by FIFA COVID-19 Regulations.
24.
In this respect, the Respondent held that, despite having requested the player on several
occasions to provide his comments as to the proposed salary reduction, without any reply
from the player, on 30 May 2020, since all the other players agreed to the proposed
Page 6 of 16
REF FPSD-348
reduction percentage (30%), except for the player, who did not make any comment within
the given deadlines, the club had no choice but to make a unilateral decision. Subsequently,
the club communicated to all its professional football players, including the Claimant, the
decision to apply a reduction of 30% of the salaries between 1 April 2020 and the end of
the 2019/2020 season, rather than the reduction of 40% recommended by the UAEFA.
25.
The above being said, the Respondent referred to the general principle of law, pacta sunt
servanda, and argued that, “although the principle of respect of contracts is extremely
important”, it is not absolute. In this respect, the Respondent maintained that there are few
exceptional contexts where the parties have the right to not perform their contractual
obligations as they had agreed in the first place.
26.
In this context, the Respondent stated the following: “In extreme cases, it may be unfair
and contrary to the principle of good faith to insist on the performance of the original terms
of the contract. In such cases, for instance, the Swiss jurisprudence has recognised and
developed the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus”. As to the application of the doctrine rebus
sic stantibus to the present case, the Respondent stated that in this situation “the
relationship between performance and consideration is disturbed as a result of an
extraordinary and unforeseeable change in circumstances in such a way that the creditor’s
insistence on his contractual claim constitutes a downright usurious exploitation of the
disproportion and thus a manifest abuse of right”.
27.
Additionally to the aforesaid, the Respondent referred to the FIFA guidelines on Covid-19
and argued that, ultimately, national employment and / or insolvency laws (or collective
bargaining agreements where in force) will answer immediate questions regarding the
viability of football employment agreements that can no longer be performed.
28.
What is more, the Respondent provided witness statements issued by the CEO and the
Head of Financial Affairs of the club on 6 January 2021, whereby the referred individuals
stated, inter alia, the following:
“I can confirm that Al Nasr suffered severe losses due to the corona virus (COVID-19)
pandemic. The income of Al Nasr reduced drastically from the previous year as shown in
the financial statement provided. During my entire time being associated with the club, I
have never witnessed anything such as this before. Due to such losses Al Nasr had no other
option but to find a collective agreement with all the players to reduce their salaries.
I can confirm that all the players readily accepted a 30% reduction of their salaries. The
players were aware of the difficult financial situation the club was in and why it was
important to take a pay cut. The players were also aware that if they wouldn’t take a pay
cut it would have jeopardized the job and salaries of the support staff of the club. Moreover,
the main reason that the players agreed to the salary reduction was the fact that they did
not have to provide their services since the UAEFA informed all its members that all its
competitions were officially cancelled and annulled.
Page 7 of 16
REF FPSD-348
However, it was unfortunate that the player Alvaro Negredo was the only player who failed
to co-operate with Al-Nasr and his fellow colleagues. I can confirm that the club made many
efforts to find convince the Player to accept the salary reduction since all the other players
had already agreed to it. I can also confirm that the club also contacted the Player’s lawyer
to find a solution but the Player’s lawyer also ignored all the communication efforts made
by the Club”.
29.
Moreover, the club provided witness statements issued by 2 players (a national player and
a foreign player), whereby they confirmed having accepted salary reductions of 30% of
their salaries.
30.
Furthermore, the club provided a document titled “Comparative revenue report”, where a
financial comparison between the seasons 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 is displayed. In
particular, the said document states that the difference between the losses incurred by the
club in the season 2019/2020, when compared to the revenue obtained in the 2018/2019
season, amounts to AED 9,470,968 (approx.: USD 2,590,000), i.e. losses of approximately
35% of its seasonal revenue.
31.
In connection with the amount of EUR 36,330 retained by the player as registration fee for
the 2019/2020 season, the Respondent maintained that the club “had not only the right to
discount the referenced amount, as well as the Player never complained about it during the
period in which the Employment Contract was valid and binding”. In this respect, the club
referred to clause 9 of the contract, which states that “The Parties acknowledge that they
had briefed of the regulations and circulars Association and FIFA before respecting and
implementation. Including the payment of any fees imposed on this contract, so every
clause in the contract violates those regulations and circulars will be void”. In this respect,
the Respondent held that “In line with the above, it is pertinent to note that according to
the applicable local rules the fees for the registration of a player shall be borne between the
latter and his new club equally”. In support of its allegations, the club provided a circular
letter issued by the UAEFA, where it is stated that fees in an amount equal to 2% of the
total value of the professional player’s contract (salary, advance payments if any, and any
other financial benefits, except for conditional benefits shall be paid by the club to the
UAEFA as seasonal registration fee. In this regard, the circular states that the said
percentage of 2% shall be equally split between the player and the club, i.e. the club shall
pay 1% thereof and the player the other 1%.
32.
Concerning the amounts claimed by the player as minor deductions for the months of
November 2018, December 2018 and December 2019, the Respondent held that the club
had to deduct the amounts of EUR 1,034, EUR 3,006 and EUR 4,594 (total of EUR 8,634,
cf. point 17 above) from the player´s monthly salaries of November 2018, December 2018
and December 2019, as he had requested few extra plane tickets that were not
contractually due.
Page 8 of 16
REF FPSD-348
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
33.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 11 November 2020 and
submitted for decision on 3 June 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the
January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
34.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and
b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), 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 Spanish player
and an Emirati club.
35.
Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 11 November 2020, the October 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
36.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
37.
In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
38.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file.
Page 9 of 16
REF FPSD-348
39.
However, the DRC 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
40.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and wished to briefly summarize the main arguments brought forward by the parties.
41. In doing so, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant is requesting to be awarded outstanding
remuneration in the total amount of EUR 340,022, plus 5% interest p.a. corresponding to
the amounts retained by the club in accordance with the liquidation balance document, the
unpaid part of the bonus due for having won the Arab Gulf Cup 2019/2020 and legal fees.
42. In particular, the Chamber noted that the player argued that in June 2020, the club decided
to reduce his salaries as from April 2020 onwards in an amount equal to 30%, but that he
rejected the said decision. In this context, observed the DRC, the Claimant maintains that the
reduction on his monthly entitlements was practiced unilaterally and was not in compliance
with the FIFA Regulations. As to the eventual application of national law to the present
matter, the Chamber further noted that the Claimant argued that only the FIFA RSTP (the
Regulations) shall be applicable to the matter at stake, insofar clause 8 of the contract
explicitly states so.
43. Furthermore, the DRC observed that the Claimant requested to be awarded the amount of
EUR 38,602, which was allegedly unlawfully deducted by the club from the bonus of EUR
100,000, which payment was triggered, since the club won the Arab Gulf Cup 2019/2020.
44. Moreover, noted the Chamber, the Claimant is requesting the amounts retained by the club
as registration fees and minor deductions for the months of November 2018, December
2018 and December 2019, which were unlawfully deducted as displayed in the liquidation
balance document. Lastly, observed the DRC, the Claimant requested to be awarded legal
fees in the amount of EUR 3,365.
45. On its part, continued the Chamber, the Respondent rejected the claim of the player,
challenging all his petita. As to the registration fees, observed the DRC, the club argued that
it was entitled to deduct the amount of EUR 36,330, insofar an amount equal to 2% of the
player´s fixed seasonal income shall be deducted in order to pay the corresponding
registration fees. Concerning the deductions practiced on the player´s remuneration as from
April until the date of expiry of the contract, i.e. 8 July 2020, the Chamber noted that the
Respondent held that it acted in good faith and in accordance with the FIFA guidelines on
Covid-19. In this respect, observed the Chamber, the Respondent argued that: 1.) it tried to
reach a mutual agreement with the player, to no avail; 2.) it suffered lost equal to 35% of
its seasonal revenue; 3.) only a percentage of 30% of the player´s fixed entitlements were
deducted, which –according to the club– is reasonable and proportionate; 4.) the said
deduction was applied to all the members of the team (to national and foreign players).
Page 10 of 16
REF FPSD-348
46. With regard to the minor deductions practiced on the player´s salaries of November 2018,
December 2018 and December 2019, the Chamber acknowledged that the club maintained
that the club lawfully offset the amount of EUR 8,634, since the player requested to be
provided extra flight tickets to which he was not contractually entitled.
47. The above being stated, the Chamber entered into the merits of the matter at hand. In the
first place, explained the Chamber, as to the amount of EUR 36,330 retained by the club in
order to pay the player´s registration fees of the season 2019/2020 in front of the UAEFA, it
must be noted that the Respondent provided a circular issued by the UAEFA on 25 July 2016
(circular no. 3230), in accordance with which a registration fee equal to 2% of the total
value of the player´s contract per season (excluding conditional payments) is payable before
the UAEFA. The said circular further provides that half of the fee (1%) shall be paid by the
club, whereas the other half (1%) shall be paid by the player. In this respect, noted the
Chamber, it remained undisputed that the amount of EUR 36,330 was retained by the club
for this purpose.
48. In view of the content of the circular provided by the club, the DRC was of the opinion that
the said document is legit and shall be considered. Nevertheless, wished to stress the DRC,
in accordance with its content, the club was only entitled to retain 1% of the player´s fixed
remuneration in order to pay the referred seasonal registration fee. In this context,
considering that the term of the contract is 2 sporting seasons (2018/2019 and 2019/2020),
and that the total value of the player´s contract for the said period amounted to, at least,
EUR 7,585,950 (cf. point 2 of the summary), it is to be presumed that the club was entitled
to retain 1% thereof, i.e. EUR 75,856, half of which (EUR 37,930) would be payable as
registration fee for the 2018/2019 season and the other half (EUR 37,930) would be payable
as registration fee for the season 2019/2020.
49. The above being explained, considering that the club retained the amount of EUR 36,330 as
registration fee for the season 2019/2020, the DRC unanimously concluded that, since the
club was entitled to retain an amount of –at least– EUR 37,930 for the referred consideration,
the club lawfully retained the said amount and, hence, the player shall not be reimbursed
any amount in this regard.
50. Concerning the reductions unilaterally practiced by the club in connection with the player´s
salaries as from April 2020 until 8 July 2020 (date of expiry of the contract), continued the
DRC, some considerations need to be made: 1.) the Respondent tried several times to discuss
the proposal with the Claimant (3 notices sent to the Claimant) before proceeding with the
decision to unilaterally reduce his salaries by means of the document dated 30 May 2020;
2.) irrespective of the fact that national law is not applicable to this dispute (clause 8 contains
a choice of law in favour of the RSTP with no reference to national law), in accordance with
the circular issued by the UAEFA on 12 April 2020, it appears that, had it been applicable,
the Respondent could possibly have reduced the Claimant´s salary in an amount equal to
40% thereof, but –de facto– the Respondent only proceeded with a reduction of 30% of
the player´s remuneration; 3.) the club provided detailed documentation pertaining to the
Page 11 of 16
REF FPSD-348
losses incurred during the season 2019/2020, i.e. it sufficiently accredited having suffered
financial losses of 35% of its seasonal revenue in comparison with the revenue obtained
during the season 2018/2019; 4.) the club provided documentary evidence in support of the
uniformity of the application of the salary reductions, sufficiently meeting its burden of proof
regarding having equally reduced the salaries of both, national and foreign players, as from
April 2020 until the end of the season 2019/2020; 5.) the player did not object to his salary
reduction until 10 August 2020, i.e. once the contract had already expired and despite being
aware of the said deduction since June 2020.
51. In view of the above, the DRC determined that, even though the parties did not reach a
mutual agreement, no CBA was concluded and national law does not apply to the
contractual relationship of the parties, the Respondent was able to prove that it acted in
good faith when attempting to contact the player on several occasions and by imposing a
salary reduction of 30% - below the benchmark of 40% suggested by the UEAFA. What is
more, continued the Chamber, the club presented sufficient documentary evidence as proof
of having incurred in losses of approx. 35% during the season 2019/2020, which leads to
the conclusion that a reduction of 30% of the players´ salaries is reasonable and
proportionate. Furthermore, emphasized the Chamber, it is a matter of fact that the player
did not oppose to the aforesaid decision to reduce his salaries upon its receipt in June 2020,
but only in August 2020, once the parties were no longer contractually engaged.
52. Nevertheless, stressed the Chamber, 2 limits shall apply to the present case:
53. On the one hand, the decision dated 30 May 2020, which contained the information
concerning the salary reductions, referred to the fixed remuneration due to the player,
excluding any conditional payment. Hence, in connection with the request of the player to
be awarded EUR 38,602 corresponding to the reduction practiced on the bonus for having
won the Arab Gulf Cup 2019/2020, the Chamber decided that the club was not entitled to
proceed with any such reduction. What is more, pointed out the DRC, the circular issued by
the EUAFA on 12 April 2020 only referred to salaries and not to conditional payments.
Moreover, clause 3.9 of the contract stipulates that all amounts due to the player shall be
net. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the player is entitled to receive the amount of EUR
38,602 unlawfully deducted by the club from the aforementioned bonus (the Respondent
does not dispute that the payment of the said bonus was triggered).
54. On the other hand, after a careful analysis of the unilateral variation practiced by the
Respondent, the Chamber determined that it could not be applied retroactively (cf. decision
ref. 20-01042 passed by the DRC on 10 December 2020 regarding the non-retroactivity of
unilaterally reduced salaries). In this respect, explained the DRC, the decision to reduce the
salary of the player was notified to the latter on 1 June 2020. Thus, the members of the
Chamber unanimously concluded that the club was in no position to reduce the player´s
salaries before that date. Therefore, the DRC determined that the salaries of April and May
2020 cannot be subject to reduction and, hence, the Respondent should pay them in full to
the Claimant. Thus, the player is entitled to receive EUR 140,838 (70,356 corresponding to
the reduction of the monthly salary of April 2020 and EUR 70,482 as reduction of the
Page 12 of 16
REF FPSD-348
monthly salary of May 2020). Concerning the salary reductions applied by the club in
connection with the salaries of June and July (only until 8 July 2020 – date of expiry of the
contract), the following considerations must be made:
The club would be entitled to retain 30% of the salary of June 2020 in the amount
of EUR 68,182 (227,273 *0.3 = 68,182);
The club would be entitled to retain 30% of the pro rata salary of the month of July
2020 –as from 1 July until 8 July 2020– in the total amount of EUR 17,595
[((227,273/31)*8)*0.3 = 17,595);
Therefore, the club would have been entitled to retain the total amount of EUR
85,777 concerning the salaries of June and July 2020 (68,182 + 17,595 = 85,777);
The club retained EUR 109,225 for this consideration (cf. point 17 of the summary);
Thus, the difference, i.e. EUR 23,448, shall be granted to the Claimant concerning
the salaries of June and July 2020 (109,225 – 85,777 = 23,448).
55. Regarding the “minor deductions” practiced on the player´s salaries of November 2018,
December 2018 and December 2019 in the total amount of EUR 8,634, the argumentation
of the club cannot be followed, insofar a club is not entitled to directly offset the
remuneration of a player with alleged debts which hold no labour nature (the price of several
flight tickets were unilaterally reduced from the aforementioned monthly salaries), following
the constant practice of the DRC. Thus, given that the entitlement of the player to receive
those amounts is not time-barred ex. art. 25.5 RSTP (claim lodged on 11 November 2020),
the player shall be entitled to the requested amount of EUR 8,634 concerning the “minor
deductions” unilaterally practiced by the club.
56. Lastly, stated the DRC, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Chamber, the amount
requested by the Claimant as legal fees is rejected
ii. Consequences
57.
Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the specific consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by
the Respondent.
58.
In view of all of the considerations made above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is
entitled to receive outstanding remuneration from the Respondent in the total amount of
EUR 211,522 (38,602+ 140,838 + 23,448 + 8,634 = 211,522), plus 5% interest p.a.
(granted in accordance with the longstanding jurisprudence of the DRC) as from the
respective due dates until the date of effective payment.
Page 13 of 16
REF FPSD-348
59.
In particular, the Chamber decided that, regarding the reductions practiced on the monthly
salaries and the “minor reductions”, the 5% default interest p.a. shall be granted as from
the due dates of each monthly salary; whereas, regarding the bonus –in the absence of a
due date for its payment–, it shall be granted as from 6 October 2020, i.e. the date on
which the Respondent made the partial payment of the bonus.
60.
As to the application of art. 12bis of the Regulations to the matter at hand, the Chamber
decided that the said provision is not applicable to the present dispute. In this regard,
explained the Chamber, even though there is a valid default notice on file in compliance
with art. 12bis, the payment of the requested amounts was not a prima facie obligation
but rather needed a detailed analysis of the situation given the exceptional constellation of
events produced by the Covid-19 pandemic.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
61.
Finally, taking into account the consideration under number 35. above, the Chamber
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
62.
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 and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
63.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent,
provided that the decision is final and binding, a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
64.
The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3
of the Regulations.
65.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 14 of 16
REF FPSD-348
d.
Costs
66.
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
67.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
IV. DECISION OF THE Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Alvaro Negredo Sanchez, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Nasr SC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
EUR 211,522 as outstanding remuneration, plus interests, calculated as follows:
5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 1,034, as from 1 December 2018 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 3,006, as from 1 January 2019 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 4,594, as from 1 January 2020 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 70,356, as from 1 May 2020 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 70,482, as from 1 June 2020 until the date
of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 23,448, as from 1 August 2020 until the
date of effective payment;
5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 38,602, as from 6 October 2020 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
Page 15 of 16
REF FPSD-348
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 16 of 16