Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12510
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 February 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Mathias Antonsen Normann
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Tarek BRAUER (Germany), member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
FC Dynamo Moscow, Russia
RESPONDENT 1/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Mathias Antonsen Normann, Norway
Represented by Advokat Monsen
RESPONDENT 2:
Al Raed, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12510
I. Facts of the case
The parties
1.
The parties to the dispute are:
a. The Russian club, FC Dynamo Moscow (hereinafter: the Club or Dynamo). The Club is
headquartered in the city of Moscow, Russia, and affiliated to the Football Union of
Russia (FUR).
b. The Norwegian footballer, Mathias Antonsen Normann (hereinafter: the Player). The
Player was born on 28 May 1996.
c. The Saudi club, Al Raed (hereinafter: Al Raed or the New Club). Al Raed is headquartered
in the city of Buraydah, Saudi Arabia, and affiliated to the Saudi Arabian Football
Federation (SAFF).
2.
The Player and the New Club are hereinafter jointly referred to as the Respondents.
The previous employment situation of the Player
3.
On 31 December 2019, the Player and the Russian club, FC Rostov (hereinafter: Rostov)
entered into a fixed-term employment contract, valid as from the same date until 31
December 2024 (hereinafter: the First Employment Agreement).
4.
On 28 August 2021, Rostov and the Player entered into a new fixed-term employment
contract, valid from 01 January 2025 to 31 December 2025 (hereinafter: the Second
Employment Agreement).
5.
The First Employment Agreement and the Second Employment Agreement are hereinafter
referred to as the Rostov Employment Agreement.
The Player’s loan to Norwich City FC
6.
On 30 August 2021, the Player, Rostov and the English club, Norwich City FC (hereinafter:
NCFC) entered into a loan transfer agreement (hereinafter: the Norwich Loan Agreement), by
means of which the Player’s services were transferred on a temporary basis from the Club
to NCFC until 30 June 2022.
7.
The Norwich Loan Agreement included inter alia a loan fee of EUR 3,000,000 due by NCFC
to the Club as well as a purchase option for the permanent transfer of the Player’s services
for EUR 13,000,000. Said purchase option was not exercised by NCFC.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12510
The suspension of the Rostov Employment Agreement per Annexe 7 RSTP
8.
On 24 June 2022, the Player notified Rostov of the suspension of the Rostov Employment
Agreement per Annexe 7 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP)
from 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2023.
The Player’s loan to Dynamo and their employment contract
9.
On 26 August 2022, the Club and the company “SILA International DMCC” (hereinafter: the
Company) signed an Intermediary Services Agreement by means of which the former hired
the latter to provide intermediary services regarding hiring the Player, upon payment of
inter alia a fee of EUR 253,847 plus Russian VAT (hereinafter: the Services Agreement).
10. On 02 September 2022, Rostov, the Player, and Dynamo entered into a loan transfer
agreement (hereinafter: the Loan Agreement) by means of which the Player‘s services were
transferred on a temporary basis from the Club to Dynamo from 6 September 2022 until
20 August 2023.
11. Clause 4 of the Loan Agreement reads inter alia as follows: “The Player explicitly and
irrevocably waives his right to suspend his employment with FC Dynamo during the Loan period
under the provisions of the Annexe 7 of FIFA RSTP”.
12. The Loan Agreement included inter alia:
a. a loan fee of EUR 1,000,000 due by Dynamo to Rostov.
b. a conditional fee of EUR 250,000 due by Dynamo to Rostov if the Player did not
suspend his employment relationship per Annexe 7 RSTP.
c. as well as a purchase option for the permanent transfer of the Player’s services for
EUR 8,500,000, per its Addendum. Said purchase option was not exercised by
Dynamo.
13. Contextually, the Player and Dynamo Moscow signed an employment agreement valid for
the duration of the Loan Agreement (hereinafter: the Contract).
14. Dynamo undertook to pay the Player:
a. Per clause 7.1 of the Contract, a monthly salary of RUB 300,000 gross, divided in
two instalments, one payable by the 20th of the current month and the remainder
by the 20th of the following month.
b. Under the Appendix to the Contract, a total remuneration of EUR 2,353,000, to be
divided and paid in monthly equal instalments for the duration of the Contract,
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12510
as concept of monthly incentive, which would be deducted of the amounts
established under clause 7.1.
15. Clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the Contract read as follows:
“2.3. The Footballer is aware of the FIFA ‘s decision to implement Annexe 7 to the FIFA RSTP
which entitles foreign employees to temporarily suspend their employment with Russian
clubs. Upon signature of this Agreement, without prejudice to the validity of the Agreement
throughout its term in general. the Footballer explicitly renounces (waives his right to) such a
suspension of the Agreement. This is a material condition. without which the Club would not
have concluded this Agreement.
2.4. The Parties explicitly state that for the sake of this Agreement the ongoing military conflict
between Russia and Ukraine shall not constitute a force majeure or a just cause or any other
justification whatsoever for unilateral termination or suspension of the Agreement by the
Footballer. This is a material condition without which the Club would not have concluded this
Agreement.”
Notices exchanged between the parties and the termination of the Contract
16. On 26 June 2023, the Club wrote to the Player and took note of his absence in the Club‘s
pre-season. It accordingly summoned the Player to explain this within the next day.
17. On 5 July 2023, the Player’s representative, Eirik Monsen, sent a letter to the Club, which is
reproduced in totum below:
“The Law firm Monsen, by the undersigned, has been contacted by Mr. Mathias Normann
(hereinafter the “Player”), through the Norwegian Players Association (NISO), and will assist
the Player in the following. I kindly request that further correspondence related to the content
of what is described below, is directed to the undersigned, preferable by e-mail: (…).
Please find attached a duly signed Power of Attorney in this regard.
As well known for Dynamo Moscow (hereinafter the “Club”), the Club concluded a tripartite
agreement with Rostov and the Player for the 2022/23-season, from 6 September 2022 until
20 August 2023.
By the time of the conclusion of the tripartite loan agreement, the Player had the possibility
to unilaterally suspend the employment contract with Rostov in accordance with the FIFA RSTP
Annexe 7, due to the ongoing conflict in Russia/Ukraine. However, by that time, the Player felt
sufficiently safe to stay in Russia, after which the abovementioned tripartite agreement was
concluded for one contractual year.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12510
Due to the Players decision to stay in Russia for the 2022/23-season, he is now prevented from
making use of the FIFA RSTP Annexe 7 for the upcoming season, based on the amendments
made by the FIFA Bureau of Council, expressed in its Circular no. 1849, dated 22 May 2023.
Firstly, the Player disagree with the amendments made by FIFA to the Annexe 7, given that
players were never informed of those consequences. Should the player have known that by
staying in Russia to comply with his contract he – at a later stage – would not have the
possibility to suspend the contract if the situation on Russia deteriorated, he might have
decided differently.
Secondly, the situation in Russia has since May 2023 evolved rapidly in an unfortunate and
uncertain direction, a situation clearly not foreseen by FIFA when amending FIFA RSTP Annexe
7 in May this year. The current events with the ongoing tension in Russia are a new situation
and circumstance, which have caused the Player to feel unsafe and to fear for his own life.
For the record, we are aware of paragraph 2.4 in the labor agreement which is related to the
military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and not the ongoing conflict in Russia.
The feeling of fear was amplified when the Player had to return to Moscow last week, as he
met a city completely changed from what he left before the summer holiday. We do not find
it necessary to elaborate on this any further, as the Club is well known with the current
situation in Russia. That said, it shall be mentioned that the current events in Russia was the
reason why the Player was reluctant to return to the Club last week. However, he felt that he
had no other choice after receiving the Club´s notice, dated 26 June 2023.
Further it shall be mentioned that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Norway now strongly
advises against all travels to Russia, due to the ongoing situation in the country. This is clearly
contributing to the fear and uncertainty the Player is experiencing.
To our understanding, the current situation in Russia clearly is an event of force majeure.
There is an ongoing tension beyond the parties ‘ control. A tension which can escalate quickly.
There is an event which the parties could not reasonably provided against before entering
into the contract. An event which could not reasonable have been avoided or overcome, and
which is not attributable to any of the parties.
The current situation has an uncertain outcome, making it impossible for the Player to
conduct his services as a footballer in a safe and stable environment. The Club are not in a
position where they can guarantee for the Players health and safety due to the current
circumstances and the Player express great concern for his welfare and life.
Even though we are of the clear opinion that the current situation legitimates a unilateral
termination of the contract, we address this matter in an attempt to find an amicable solution
with the Club and Rostov. The latter is included due to the concluded tripartite agreement
between the parties and Rostov has been addressed on the same matter.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12510
Due to the current events and circumstances and that our main priority should be to do our
outmost to protect employees and to guarantee a safe working environment, we trust we can
find a common ground on this matter.
As a final, yet important note. It has come to our knowledge that the Club has yet to pay to
the Player his monthly remuneration for the month of June, which is overdue. The Player
informs us that he on 4 July 2023, was presented a document after which the Club requested
the Player to renounce his right to said remuneration, apparently due to his absence for three
days. We kindly request the Club to proceed with payment of the outstanding dues, according
to the employment contract.
Due to the urgency of the matter at hand, we kindly ask the Club to give the matter priority
and respond as soon as possible.
For the sake of good order, all rights of our client are reserved.”
18. Following the above, the representatives of the Player and the Club held a conference call
on 7 July 2023.
19. On the same date, the Player’s representative wrote to the Club as follows:
“Dear Edward and Dmitri,
Thanks for the meeting and the fruitful discussion on a difficult matter.
As for the deduction of incentive payment, Mathias accept a deduction by 50% as proposed
by the club.
Thank you for being cooperative in this matter.
We look forward to hearing from you on the other issues raised in our meeting, after you have
discussed it with Mr. Pivovarov.
As mentioned, our main priority is the safety and well-being of Mathias, and we appreciate
your cooperation on this matter.
Best regards
Eirik Monsen”
20. On 11 July 2023, the Club replied to the Player as follows:
“Dear Eirik, good evening,
I am planning to come to the training center tomorrow. I will then ask Mathias to sign
cancellation of the 100% deduction, as well as his written consent to transfer 50% to the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12510
endowment foundation of the Club ‘s academy. I hope we will close the issue upon signature
of those documents.
Same as discussed earlier during our call, we strictly comply with all the mandatory UEFA and
RFU licensing criteria, so we are confident on taking all the necessary measures to provide
safe and healthy environment for our players.
There is nothing preventing us from compliance with our obligations towards Mathias as per
his employment contract. Hence, we expect the same from the player, given the upcoming
start of the RPL season.
I take this opportunity to thank you once again for professional and positive approach.
Kind regards,
Dmitrii”.
21. On 12 July 2023, the Player’s representative sent a letter to the Club, as follows:
“Dear Dmitrii and Edward,
Thanks for your email.
I have informed Mathias that you will meet him at the training facilities today regarding the
outstanding dues, ref. your email below.
As also discussed during our call, it would be appreciated if Dynamo, as soon as possible,
could inform us and Rostov, if Dynamo at this stage has determined to not make use of the
buy-out clause.
Med vennlig hilsen
Eirik Monsen”
22. On 30 July 2023, the Player’s representative wrote to the Club as follows:
“Dear Dmitrii and Edward,
I allow myself to follow up on the situation for Mathias due to its frightening and terrifying
development.
As you probably are fully aware of, new drone attacks happened in the city of Moscow last
night. One attack occurred approximately 50 – 100 meters away from Mathias home, 10
meters from the Supermarket which Mathias use regularly! We have seen videos from the
attack which is disturbing. As previous held, and which now is amplified by last night attack,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12510
is the ongoing situation, which is beyond the parties ‘ control, something that cause great
concern for the life of Mathias.
We appreciate the clubs’ previous guarantees that you will take all necessary measures to
provide for a safe and healthy environment for your players. However, when an explosion
occurs less than 100 meters from the home of Mathias, where he was asleep, on what seem
to be a random building, the club is not in a position where any guarantees can be given.
Media reports also informs us that new attacks can be expected.
As mentioned, has this attack clearly amplified an already existing fear for his own life, and
we find the situation unsustainable. Due to the urgency of the matter and the need to put life
before football, we kindly ask the club to be open to discuss an early termination.
We kindly ask for you quick respond hereto.
Med vennlig hilsen
Eirik Monsen”
23. On 31 July 2023, the Club paid the Player EUR 174,891.01.
24. On 1 August 2023, the Club replied to the Player’s representative as follows:
Dear Eirik,
First of all, the club upholds its intention to continuously take all the necessary measures to
provide the Player’s with a safe working environment. Of course, we are aware of the incident
that took place on Sunday, when something (assumingly a drone) wrecked into an office
building. We suggest however to abstain from any appraising before the state authorities
determine the nature and the reason of this – with no doubt unpleasant – occasion. To make
it more comfortable and safe for Mathias, we may suggest him our assistance to promptly
find an apartment in another city district or in Khimki district (i.e. close to the club ‘s training
premises, where most of the team ‘s players live).
Following your request for early termination, same as before, we believe there is no valid
reason thereto for now.
We understand the Player’s concern raised and will be happy to provide him with all the
necessary assistance to make him feel absolutely safe.
As a side note and without prejudice to the above, as the player is fully aware, the sole holder
of 100% of federative and registration rights to the player is FC Rostov. Therefore we suggest
to discuss with our colleagues from the said club first any possibility regarding early loan
termination.
Still, we remain available for further communication.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12510
Kind regards,
Dmitrii
25. On 3 August 2023, the Player’s representative sent a notice of early unilateral termination
of the Contract due to force majeure circumstances. Said notice is reproduced in
continuation for the sake of completeness:
“We refer to our previous correspondence, both in writing and orally, regarding the ongoing
and highly uncertain situation in Russia. A situation which now has escalated to a level that
makes a continuation of the employment relationship with Dyanmo Moscow (the “Club”)
impossible.
Due to the fact that the Player also have an employment contract with Rostov, where he,
according to the tripartite loan agreement should return on 21 August 2023, and also based
on the fact that the Club, in its email of 31 July 2023, informed us that it would go in dialogue
with Rostov for a possible early termination of the loan agreement - we found it necessary to
discuss the ongoing situation with Rostov first, in an attempt to find an amicable solution.
Rostov couldn ‘t arrange for a meeting before today, 3 August 2023. Unfortunately, the
meeting with Rostov did not lead to an amicable solution, and to our surprise we were
informed that the Club had not been in contact with Rostov to discuss a possible early
termination.
We hereby inform the Club that Mr. Mathias Normann (the “Player”) unilaterally terminate
the employment relationship with the Club with immediate effect – with just cause.
By our latest correspondence, dated 30 July 2023, we informed the Club on the most recent
developments, even though it was well-known for the Club. On the night of Sunday, 30 July
2023, the city of Moscow was attacked by drones, after which one of these explosions
occurred approximately 50 – 100 meters away from the home of the Player.
On the night to Tuesday, 1 August 2023, a new drone attack hit the very same building! The
explosion woke up the Player. These two incidents clearly shook the Player. According to
media sources several other drones shall have been shot down before they reached the city
of Moscow. To our understanding, this has been verified by Russian media as well.
As also well known for the Club we have previously requested an acceptance for early
termination of the loan agreement due to the ongoing tension and conflict in Russia. This
request was repeated by our email dated 30 July 2023, sent shortly after the attack on the
same day. Unfortunately, no acceptance for such early termination has been received, despite
the abovementioned events, and despite the fact that the existing loan agreement expires in
approximately two weeks.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12510
By your email of 1 August 2023, the Club once again reiterate its position. Although the Club
acknowledged that there was an “incident” on 30 July 2023, it appears that the Club will not
acknowledge that this attack, or any other attacks, can be contributed to the ongoing conflict.
Further, it appears that the Club do not acknowledge the Players own experiences. Thus, it
seems impossible to find a common understanding of the realities, and hence impossible for
further dialogue.
As referred to above, the Club suggested to discuss a possible early termination with your
colleagues in Rostov, who is the holder of the federative and registration rights of the Player.
As mentioned, Rostov informed us today, that no concerns about the Player had been raised
or any discussions regarding a possible early termination with the Club had found place. We
cannot see that any of the clubs, neither Dynamo, nor Rostov is doing anything to ensure the
life and well-being of the Player, which presumable is caused by the fact that the parties have
a very different understanding of the realities, including possible danger, in Russia.
The current situation is unbearable for the player. The attacks of Sunday and Tuesday
confirms that the situation and the ongoing conflict has escalated to a level where the player
no longer can feel safe and where he expresses great concern for his own life. The
development is both dangerous and unpredictable, as it is impossible to know where or when
a new attack can be expected in the region.
The Club has previously stated that it is confident that it will take all necessary measures to
provide a safe and healthy environment for the players. The same message was received by
your email as of 1 August 2023, where the Club also suggested to find a new apartment for
the Player in a different region in the city of Moscow due to the attack which had occurred on
Sunday. We appreciate the Clubs expressed willingness and desire to protect the Player.
Unfortunately, it is not satisfactory, as the situation is clearly outside the parties` control.
Either the Player, nor the Club knows where or when a new attack will be. Thus, moving to
another district in the city of Moscow will not in any way contribute to the Player feeling safe.
The Club is unfortunately not in a position where it can guarantee for the Players health and
safety. This is in our view confirmed by the fact that the Club now offers its assistance to move
the Player to another district due to the unforeseeable attacks which has occurred and also
by the message the Player received on 30 July 2023, from an administrative employee at the
Club, where she expressed concern and wrote the following: “Hi Mathias. How are you? I really
hope you are safe and that the morning case did not affect you and your girlfriend”.
We are no longer in a position where the Player can just hope that everything will be ok, when
several drone attacks has hit just outside his own home and when it is impossible to foresee
the next hit.
As held in our letter dated 5 July 2023, and which are considerable amplified by the latest
development, we are of the clear opinion that the current situation in Russia is an event of
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12510
force majeure. In our letter dated 5 July 2023, we argued that the tension could escalate
quickly. Unfortunately, that has already happened, and verified sources indicates that it may
escalate further.
To reiterate why we consider the matter to be an event of force majeure: The current and
ongoing tension is beyond the parties´ control. The tension has escalated quickly and can
easily escalate further. There is an event which the parties could not reasonably provided
against before entering into the contract. An event which could not reasonable have been
avoided or overcome, and which is not attributable to any of the parties.
In this context we refer to the FIFA Circular no. 1849, dated 22 May 2023 and the FIFA RSTP
Annexe 7, which is related to the war in Ukraine – and not the war in Russia. The now escalated
situation in Russia was not foreseen by FIFA when they first made the amendments to the FIFA
RSTP in March 2022 (Circular no. 1787 and Circular no.1788), nor when they later amended
the RSTP by its Circular no.1849 in May this year.
Finally, we refer to the labor agreement concluded between the parties ‘ and its article 2.4.
The article is included in the extension of article 2.3, referring to the FIFA RSTP Annexe 7, which
do not concern a possible escalation of conflict in Russia. As previously held, the ongoing
situation in Russia is a completely new element to the existing conflict between the countries
and article 2.4 cannot be understood as a waiver to any possible event of force majeure
related to the ongoing conflict. The Player is not in a position where he can risk his own life.
The situation in Russia, and Moscow especially, makes it impossible for the Player to conduct
his services as a footballer in a safe and stable environment.
Despite our several attempts to find an amicable solution with the Club and even though the
contract expires in only a few weeks, the Player need to protect himself from immediate
danger. Thus, we see no other choice than to inform the Club that the Player by this notice
must unilaterally terminate the contract with the Club with just cause, with reference to the
abovementioned.”
26. On 4 August 2023, the Club refuted the termination of the Contract by the Player. It stated
as follows in a letter addressed to the Player:
a. Dynamo disputed the termination of the Contract, stating that they never discussed
early termination of a loan agreement with Rostov and that they cannot affect decisions
made by the other club.
b. They refuted claims that incidents with drones have any connection to the ongoing
military conflict in Ukraine.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12510
c. The Club emphasized that the conflict does not constitute a force majeure under the
Contract and disputes the Player’s claim that incidents in Moscow are related to the
conflict.
d. The Club asserted that they offered assistance to the Player after the incidents, but it
was rejected, and accused the Player of not communicating or cooperating to find a
solution.
e. The Club refuted the Player’s accusation that the clubs are not ensuring his well-being
and failing to protect him, stating that they have always shown respect and care
towards the player and their contractual obligations.
f.
The Club indicated a suspicion that the Player might be seeking to join another club and
warned him of legal action if he terminated the Contract early.
g. The Club also expressed disappointment that the Player did not attend training and
requested him to contact the team manager and resume preparations for the next
game.
27. On 19 September 2023, the Club wrote to the Player and demanded compensation for
breach of contract.
28. By reply dated 4 October 2023, the Player refuted the Club ‘s position on the grounds that
he had just cause to terminate the Contract.
29. Following the termination of the Contract, the Player signed an employment agreement
with the New Club valid as from 21 August 2023 until 30 June 2025, including the following
concepts:
a. Monthly salary of USD 41,056 net from 21 August 2023 to 31 August 2023, payable by
the last day of each month.
b. Monthly salary of USD 127,273 net from 1 September 2023 to 30 June 2024, payable by
the last day of each month.
c. Monthly salary of USD 141,667 net from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, payable by the last
day of each month.
d. A fixed payment of USD 300,000 net due on 1 September 2023.
e. Housing.
f.
A car.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-12510
g. Two round trip tickets for the Player and his family per season.
h. Match bonuses in accordance with the “internal list of bonuses”.
i.
Paid annual leave.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
30. On 3 November 2023, the Club filed the claim at hand against the Player and the New Club
before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Club
31. In its claim, the Club outlined the following:
a. The Player did not act with the slightest diligence expected from a party willing to
continue an employment contract. Specifically, the Player did not negotiate with the Club
for relocation to find a better solution and comply with his contractual obligations. This
lack of proactive engagement in finding a mutually beneficial solution is a central point
in the Club’s argument.
b. In contrast, the Club stated it strictly complied with all its obligations towards the Player,
including paying wages on time and providing a professional environment for the
Player’s growth. Additionally, when the Player failed to be present for the team’s
preseason sessions, the Club made concessions by not deducting his monthly incentive
payment at a maximum rate, despite the gravity of the offense committed. Furthermore,
when the Player referred to incidents with drones, the Club instantly offered the Player
options with lodging in other places. These actions are presented as evidence of the
Club’s commitment to fulfilling its obligations and providing a supportive environment
for the Player.
c. The Club maintains that the circumstances cited by the Player cannot be considered as
just cause to terminate the Contract, and the Player was not interested in a longer stay
at the Club. The Club asserts accordingly that the Player unilaterally terminated the
contract without just cause on 3 August 2023. Overall, the Club argues that the Player’s
actions did not meet the criteria for just cause termination as per the relevant FIFA
regulations, and the Player failed to demonstrate a valid reason for unilaterally
terminating the Contract.
d. Consequently, the Club submitted that the main consequence of terminating the
Contract without just cause is that the party in breach must pay compensation to the
injured party as per article 17 of the RSTP. As the Player and the Club did not agree on
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-12510
the amount of compensation in the Contract, the compensation due to the Club by the
Player shall be calculated on the basis of the RSTP, and the New Club must be found
jointly liable.
e. As to the compensation, the Club requested the amount of EUR 176,770.44 as the sum
of the concepts outlined below:
“Non-amortized transfer fee expenses
The number of days worked by the Player: 332 days; the number of days during the Contract:
349 days; the amount of transfer compensation paid to [Rostov] by the Club: EUR 1 250 000.
Thus, the amount on non-amortized transfer fee expenses shall be as follows:
EUR 1 250 000 – (EUR 1 250 000 * 332 /349) = EUR 60 800
Non-amortized intermediary fee expenses:
The amount of remuneration paid to the intermediary by the Club: EUR 253 847.
Thus, the amount on non-amortized intermediary fee expenses shall be as follows:
EUR 253 847 – (EUR 253 847 * 332 /349) = EUR 12 365
Non-amortized Player’s salary expenses:
EUR 103 517,44.”
f.
As to sporting sanctions, the Club requested the FIFA to impose them on the Player
based on article 17 paragraph 3 of the RSTP, specifically a restriction of four months on
the Player’s eligibility to play in official matches. Additionally, they requested sporting
sanctions on the New Club based on article 17 paragraph 4 of the RSTP, notably a ban
from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two entire
and consecutive registration periods.
32. The Club requested the following relief:
“1. Determine that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause on 03 August 2023.
2. Order the Player to pay the Club compensation in the amount of EUR 176 770,44 plus
interest of 5% per annum from 03 August 2023, until the payment date.
3. Declare the [New Club] jointly and severally liable for the payment of the compensation
above per article 17 paragraph 2 of the [RSTP].
4. Impose sporting sanctions on the Player based on article 17 paragraph 3 of the [RSTP], in
particular: a restriction of four months on Player’s eligibility to play in official matches.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-12510
5. Impose sporting sanctions on the [New Club] based on article 17 paragraph 4 of the
Regulations, notably: a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two entire and consecutive registration periods.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Player
33. The Player, in response to the Club’s claim, filed a statement of defence as well as a
counterclaim, in the following terms:
With regard to the factual circumstances of the case
a. Implementation of Annexe 7 RSTP
34. The Player invoked Annexe 7 of the RSTP, which allows players to suspend their contracts
in exceptional situations deriving from the Russia/Ukraine war. The Player argued that the
war in Ukraine, which had implications for his safety in Russia, constituted such an
exceptional situation. He explained in this respect that he moved to Dynamo from Rostov
due to safety concerns as he did not want to stay in Rostov-on-Don, which is close to the
Ukrainian border, due to the ongoing conflict.
35. The Player moreover contended that FIFA’s amendments to Annexe 7 were unfair and
unforeseeable in that they excluded players who stayed in Russia from invoking Annexe 7.
The Player argued that these amendments did not consider the possible escalation of
conflict and war in Russia.
b. Escalation of conflict and war in Russia
36. The Player explained that upon returning from his summer holiday, he encountered
military blockades and controls in Moscow, which heightened his fears. He outlined in this
respect that his anxiety was further exacerbated by several attacks that occurred near his
residence in Moscow, especially by drone. The Player argued that despite these alarming
circumstances he felt that the Club did not adequately address his concerns as while he
made multiple attempts to initiate a dialogue with the Club to discuss measures for
ensuring his safety, these efforts were either allegedly delayed or dismissed by the Club.
On this note, the Player indicated that this lack of response led to a loss of confidence in
the Club’s ability to guarantee his safety to the effect that the Player was left with the
impression that the Club was either unable or unwilling to implement measures that would
ensure his safety amidst the escalating conflict.
c. Unilateral termination of the employment relationship and its aftermath
37. Given the abovementioned circumstances, the Player explained he proceeded to
unilaterally terminate his employment relationship with the Club, on 3 August 2023, due to
the escalation of war and attacks in Russia. He clarified in this respect that he left Russia
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-12510
the next day and returned to Norway. The Player claimed that he feared for his life and
safety in Russia, as there were several attacks in Rostov-on-Don and Moscow in the period
between 28 July and 1 August 2023. He also claimed that he tried to find an amicable
solution with the Club and Rostov, but to no avail.
38. The Player equally confirmed that he found a new employment with Al Raed on 20 August
2023. He contextually signed an employment agreement with Al Raed from 21 August 2023
until 30 June 2025.
d. Additional allegations addressed by the Club
39. Firstly, the Player contradicted the Club’s assertion that no damages or injured citizens
have occurred due to the conflict in Russia, by citing sources and media reports to support
his position.
40. Secondly, the Player emphasized the communication issues with the Club, who he believes
misunderstands the complete reasons for the termination. According to the Player, these
reasons include more than just drone incidents in Moscow.
41. Lastly, the Player dismissed the Club’s comparison of drone attacks in Saudi Arabia to those
in Russia by stating that this comparison is invalid due to the outdated news article used
by the Club and due to differing contexts between Saudi Arabia and Russia.
With regard to substance of the case
a. As to the just cause
42. The Player deems he has terminated the Contract with just cause. In doing so, he referred
to art. 14 par. 1 RSTP, which allows for contract termination by either party without
consequences if there is just cause. He argued to this effect that the escalating conflict and
war in Russia constituted a just cause.
43. In support of his position, the Player relied on CAS jurisprudence, stating that an early
unilateral termination must have a certain level of severity to be admitted as “cause”. He
emphasized that a contract termination should always be an action of last resort, a
principle rooted in established jurisprudence, and that the situation at hand is considered
sufficiently serious whereby there are objective circumstances rendering it unreasonable
to expect the employment relationship between the parties to continue. The Player cites
CAS 2013/A/3091, which likens the concept of “just cause” in art. 14 RSTP to that of “good
reason” within the meaning of art. 337 para. 2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.
44. What is more, the Player considers the escalated situation and circumstances as an event
of force majeure, beyond the parties’ control and not attributed to any of them. The Player
criticized the Club for ignoring his concerns and not taking his situation seriously, despite
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-12510
his repeated attempts to communicate his fears and find common ground for discussions.
Finally, he clarified that he is not claiming any compensation from the Club, but is asking
FIFA to acknowledge his genuine and real concern for his safety and wellbeing by
highlighting that the matter at hand is not a standard case before the Football Tribunal.
b. As to the compensation, sporting sanctions and joint liability
45. The Player reiterated that the ongoing war and conflict in Russia constituted a force
majeure situation. In this case, the Player contended that the war created such a situation,
making it impossible for him to continue playing football in the country due to safety
concerns, which must be accounted for in the calculation of compensation due, if any.
46. Subsequently, the Player claimed that the Club showed no interest in finding an amicable
solution to the situation. This could be interpreted as a lack of willingness on the part of
the Club to negotiate or consider alternatives that could have allowed the Player to fulfill
his contract under different conditions, such as transferring him to a safer location or
agreeing to a mutual termination of the Contract. By the same token, the Player pointed
out that the Club had profited from loaning him to other clubs, which suggests that the
Club was able to generate revenue without the Player’s services, which undermine their
claim for compensation: if the Club was able to profit from loaning out the Player, he
submitted the Club did not suffer a significant financial loss from his departure.
47. The Player thus contended that several factors should be considered in calculating
compensation, including the force majeure situation, lack of interest from the Club, profit
from loaning, expenses saved by the Club due to early termination, and absence of any
offer reflecting his market value, unlike the arguments raised by the Club in its statement
of claim. He argued that taking these factors into account would result in zero
compensation if his termination was deemed to be without just cause.
48. As to the joint liability, the Player submitted that in case compensation is to be paid for
breach of contract, the New Club shall be deemed jointly liable per art. 17 par. 2 RSTP.
Counterclaim
49. In his counterclaim, the Player acknowledges that he was three days late on his return to
the Club after the summer holiday but does not acknowledge the allegedly number of
offenses. He also claimed he accepted the deduction of 50% of the June salary, as he
thought it could contribute to an amicable solution with the Club.
50. The Player further claims that the fine imposed on him is disproportionate and excessive,
citing well-established jurisprudence that allows the FIFA to reduce or declare null and void
clauses that are considered grossly disproportionate and/or excessive. The Player argues
that the imposed sanction must be proportionate to the severity of the offense and shall
not exceed the limits of what seems to be normal in light of the circumstances. The Player
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-12510
emphasizes the specific circumstances at hand, stating that he was three days late to preseason, after having received the coach’s oral acceptance for such delay, and no matches
were scheduled for this period.
51. The Player also argues that the war and escalated conflict in the country led to a genuine
and real fear for his safety, and he tried to find an amicable solution with the Club. He
asserts that the termination of the Contract was due to his concern for his safety and wellbeing, and the lack of duty of care by the Club.
52. The Player contends that denying the possibility to terminate the contract with just cause
in such unique situations would lead to ignoring the reality in the world and failing to
acknowledge that individuals cannot be held to keep complying with a contract when
circumstances in a country change, and they wish to put their well-being first.
53. On the basis of the foregoing, the Player has sought outstanding dues, specifically EUR
46.951 net in outstanding remuneration for part of the salary for the month of July and the
first three days of August 2023, as well as a deduction of 50% of the incentive payment for
the month of June 2023, amounting to EUR 102,000.
Conclusion
54. The Player filed the following request for relief:
“On these grounds, the [Player] hereby request the FIFA DRC to accept this respond and
counterclaim and issue a decision in the following terms:
As for the claim submitted by the Club:
1. To reject the claim in full and determine that the [Player] lawfully terminated the
employment contract with the Club with just cause.
Alternatively, in the hypothetically case that the FIFA DRC conclude that the employment
contract was terminated without just cause:
1. To reject the claim submitted by the Club and establish that the compensation for breach
of contract is set to zero.
2. To determine that the [New Club] is jointly and severally liable for any compensation.
As for the counterclaim submitted by the [Player]:
1. To accept the counterclaim of the [Player].
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-12510
2. Order the Club to pay to the [Player] compensation in the amount of EUR 148.951 plus 5%
interest per annum, calculated as from 3 August 2023, until the payment is made.”
c. Reply of the New Club
55. In its reply, Al Raed stated it did not induce the Player to breach his Contract with the Club.
It stated that the Player terminated the Contract on 3 August 2023, due to his genuine and
real fear for his safety and well-being in Russia, where there was an escalation of war and
conflict. As such, Al Raed underlined it signed the Player only after he left Russia and was
not aware of the contract details between the Player and Rostov.
56. On this note, Al Raed submitted it was not involved in the termination of the Contract by
the Player with Dynamo. It argued that it did not approach the Player or offer him any
incentives to terminate the Contract. On the contrary, Al Raed asserted the Player’s
decision to terminate the Contract was based on his intention to protect his physical
integrity and his life. The New Club insisted it had no knowledge or influence over the
Player’s situation in Russia or his communication with Dynamo.
57. In addition, Al Raed argued it should not be held jointly and severally liable for the payment
of any compensation to Dynamo because the Player had just cause to terminate the
Contract, as he faced a serious threat to his safety and well-being in Russia. Therefore, no
compensation is due to the Club.
58. Lastly, Al Raed submitted it should not be imposed any sporting sanctions. Al Raed
reiterated it did not induce the Player to breach his Contract, and can rebut the regulatory
presumption by providing evidence that it signed the Player after he left Russia and without
knowing the details of his contract with Dynamo.
59. Al Raed filed the following relief:
“a. the [Club’s] Request for Relief shall be rejected.
b. The [Player] have (sic) terminated the [Contract], with just cause considering the force
majeure of the events.
c. [Al Raed] shall not be liable for the unilateral termination of the Employment Agreement
signed between the Claimant and the Respondent Player.
d. [Al Raed] shall not be liable for inducement to the unilateral breach of the Employment
Agreement signed between the Claimant and the Respondent Player.
e. [Al Raed] is not jointly nor severally liable for the payment of an adequate compensation
to the Claimant.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-12510
f. [Al Raed] shall not be ordered to pay interest p.a. calculated over the amount of
compensation.
g. If not so, subsidiarily:
f.1 Taken the special circumstances of the matter at hand into consideration, the
compensation would be zero if the termination was considered to be without just cause.”
d. Reply to the counterclaim by the Club
60. In reply to the Player’s counterclaim, the Club denied owing any amounts to the Player and
requested that the counterclaim be dismissed on the following grounds:
a. The Player’s absence from training sessions and other Club events constitutes a
material breach of the Contract, which justifies the decrease in the monthly incentive
payment amount as per the Club’s Code of Conduct.
b. The Club asserts that the Player explicitly accepted the reduction in his monthly
incentive payment through email correspondence and oral negotiations, and that the
remaining 50% of his monthly incentive payment was received in full.
c. The Club argues that the Player’s behavior suggests explicit admission of guilt and
liability for the committed violations of the Contract.
d. The Club emphasizes that the Player’s claim for the imposed fine being
disproportionate and excessive is not supported, as the Player consented to the
conditions and sanctions specified in the contract by signing it.
e. The Club contends that the Player’s claims for outstanding dues for June, July, and
August 2023 are not valid, as the Player did not provide proof of non-payment for July
2023, and the termination of the Contract by the Player without just cause constitutes
a gross violation of the Contract.
f.
The Club also argues that the Player’s inconsistent and abusive behavior, as well as the
failure to send a proper default notice regarding the overdue amounts, further weaken
the Player’s claims.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-12510
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
61. 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 3 November 2023 and
submitted for decision on 22 February 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.
62. 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
RSTP (May 2023), 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 Norwegian player and a Russian club, with the involvement of a Saudi club.
63. 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 RSTP (May 2023 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged
on 3 November 2023, the said edition of the RSTP (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
64. 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
65. 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. 22
REF. FPSD-12510
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
66. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded to the substance of the case
and noted that the case concerned a club’s claim against a player and his new club for
breach of contract, with a corresponding counterclaim for outstanding remuneration by
the player against his former club.
67. In this context, the Chamber decided it will first deal with the merits of the Player’s
counterclaim before addressing the issue of the termination of the Contract.
68. In this first issue, the DRC recalled that the Player is seeking his salary for July and 3 days
of August 2023, as well as the amount of EUR 102,000 deducted from his salary for June
2023 due to his absence at the beginning of the 2023/2024 season. In this regard, the DRC
wished to underline that the Player does not dispute his absence at that time, but argues
that the amount deducted is disproportionate.
69. The Club, on the other hand, argues that the Player materially breached the Contract by
being absent, did not provide evidence that he had not been paid his salary for July 2023
and expressly accepted a 50% fine.
70. With regard to the salary for July and the pro-rata salary for August, the DRC was of the
firm opinion that the Contract was valid and in force at the time, and there is no dispute
between the parties as to a specific reason why it was not paid, unlike the month of June.
As such, it saw no reason why the Player should not be paid accordingly.
71. The Chamber confirmed in this respect that it was for the Club to discharge its burden of
proof to demonstrate that it had complied with its contractual obligations; however, the
Club tried in its submission to shift this burden to the Player, an argument the DRC was not
prepared to follow. The Club failed to submit substantive evidence that it indeed paid the
Player the salary for July 2023 and the pro-rata salary for August 2023.
72. With regard to the disciplinary aspect and the amount to be deducted from the Player’s
salary for June 2023, it is clear from the record in the DRC’s opinion that the Player’s
representative on his behalf agreed to the 50% reduction. The fact that the Player was
represented by counsel in this regard was also a determining factor in the Chamber’s
opinion.
73. Accordingly, the DRC found that the Player, duly represented, negotiated his disciplinary
sanction with the objective, as admitted by the Player in his submissions, of facilitating
negotiations with the Club. In the DRC’s view, this demonstrates that the Player was
prepared to accept responsibility for the absence, as he did. What is more, on 12 July 2023,
the Player signed a statement in which he explicitly agreed with the reduction.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-12510
74. Therefore, the DRC found that the Player’s conduct was inconsistent under the doctrine of
venire contra factum proprium, given that the Player clearly negotiated and agreed in writing
to the fine without making any further reservations, leading the Club to have a legitimate
expectation that the same would not be discussed further.
75. In the very specific and particular circumstances of the present case, combined with the
conduct of the Player with the assistance of a legal representative in accepting (and actively
negotiating) the discipline imposed on him by the Club, the DRC confirmed that the fine
and the deduction from the Player’s salary in June 2023 were agreed upon and therefore
enforceable.
76. Consequently, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Club is only liable to pay to the Player the amounts which
were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination for a total of EUR
46.951 net, that is, his salary of July 2023 plus 3 days of the month of August 2023.
77. In continuation, the DRC proceeded to examine the issue of termination. In this respect,
the DRC observed that the parties have no factual dispute other than perhaps the
seriousness of the war-related events that took place in Moscow in late July/early August
2023. The crux of the matter, so found the DRC, is of law, and whether the Player had just
cause to terminate the Contract due to force majeure, and the corresponding
consequences.
78. According to the Player, he terminated the Contract with just cause due to the escalation
of the war in Russia/Ukraine, to the effect that he felt no longer safe in Moscow, which
amounts to force majeure in line with the principle of ultima ratio. The Club argues
otherwise, and states that such force majeure did not exist, and the Player breached the
Contract only to be engaged by the New Club.
79. The DRC noted that the Player bore the burden to demonstrate that force majeure existed,
that is, an unforeseen, extraordinary, and exceptional circumstance, beyond the parties’
control, which justified the early termination of their contractual relationship.
80. As a departure point, the DRC confirmed that the argumentation of the Player cannot be
upheld, because the war, by the time the Player was on loan, was not unforeseen: it has
been already happening for a few months, a situation which is expressly provided for both
in the Loan Agreement and clause 2.4 of the Contract. In addition, the DRC noted that the
Player expressly recognized that situation in his letter to the Club of 5 July 2023:
“By the time of the conclusion of the tripartite loan agreement, the Player had the
possibility to unilaterally suspend the employment contract with the Club in accordance
with the FIFA RSTP Annexe 7, due to the ongoing conflict in Russia/Ukraine. However, by
that time, the Player felt sufficiently safe to stay in Russia, after which the loan
agreement was concluded for one contractual year.“
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-12510
81. The DRC underscored that the Player correctly indicated that at that moment, he was
entitled to suspend the Rostov Employment Agreement per Annexe 7 of the Regulations,
but deliberately chose not to do so, and be engaged by Dynamo. In other words, being fully
aware of the risks associated with his decision, the Player deliberately chose to remain
playing in a country at war, in the capital city of that country.
82. In light of this specific behaviour, the DRC concluded that the Player, by making the choice
to stay in Russia, undertook the risks inherent to a country at war: being exposed to it. He
cannot now change his course of action alleging that a new, unforeseen circumstance
(which in fact was already present) arose. The war existed when the Player made his
decision to conclude a new agreement, therefore the Player made an informed decision.
83. On this note, the Player tries to argue that the latest edition of the Regulations then
prevented him from suspending his contract with Dynamo. In the DRC’s opinion, and while
the Chamber is not prepared to embrace the arguments of the Club regarding the waiver
outlined in Clause 2.3 of the Contract, this line of reasoning cannot subsist. For the sake of
completeness, as Circular 1849 of 22 May 2023 indicated, the purpose of the latest edition
Annexe 7 was clear:
b) Limitations on the scope of application of Annexe 7 to the RSTP
Certain limitations on the scope of application of Annexe 7 to the RSTP have been introduced.
The underlying rationale is that players and coaches who have, despite the escalation
of the war in Ukraine, decided to stay in Ukraine or Russia, start employment in
Ukraine or Russia or return to one of those countries in the meantime, cannot rely on
Annexe 7 to suspend an ongoing contract. Therefore, Annexe 7 does not apply to:
• foreign players who, at the time this annexe enters into force and thereafter, are registered
with a club affiliated to the UAF or FUR;
• foreign coaches who, at the time this annexe enters into force and thereafter, render their
services to a club affiliated to the UAF or FUR; and
• employment contracts of an international dimension of players or coaches that have been
concluded or extended after 7 March 2022.
84. All in all, the DRC held that the Player had regulatory protection to flee the area, which he
then waived by making the decision to stay in Russia. Annexe 7 RSTP is pari pasu with a
high degree of regulatory flexibility in order to keep contractual stability as much as
possible, while early termination of contracts, or unilateral amendments of contractual
terms and conditions, are not considered as a desirable solution – a cornerstone of the
FIFA regulatory framework under the RSTP. In particular, it should be recalled that all
editions of Annexe 7 called for an agreement between the parties to avoid terminations,
which is indeed what happened in the matter at hand by means of the Loan Agreement
and the Contract.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-12510
85. In such framework, and in view of all the considerations above, the DRC rejected the
Player’s argument that it was impossible for him to fulfil his contractual obligations due to
a force majeure event: the Chamber explained that force majeure requires a new,
unforeseen, and unexpected situation beyond the parties’ control; the escalation of a preexisting, albeit as severe as war, alone is not sufficient. Therefore, the DRC found that the
Player has committed breach of contract towards the Club and shall endure the ensuing
consequences.
ii. Consequences
86. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Club by the Player 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, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club
(amortised over the term of the contract) and depending on whether the contractual
breach falls within the protected period.
87. 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.
88. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the player to the club 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.
89. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Club, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 121,358.20
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract, on the basis of the following calculation:
•
•
•
Total duration of the Contract: 349 days for a total of EUR 2,353,000.
Time remaining under the Contract: 18 days.
Residual value of the Contract: EUR 121,358.20 (= EUR 2,353,000 * 18/349).
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-12510
90. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time. According to the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal as well as art. 17 par. 1 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 due by a player to his
former club. In particular, the Chamber explained that the standard practice is to calculate
the average between the player’s remuneration with his former club and his remuneration
with the new club, for the exact same period of time comprised between the early
termination of the employment contract with the old club and the original expiry date of
such contract. In case substantial evidence thereof is provided by the club, the Chamber
might additionally grant the damaged club the non-amortised transfer fee paid for the
player in breach. In this matter however, due to its specific circumstances and because the
new employment agreement between the Player and Al Read started after the original end
date of the Contract, the Chamber undertook the exercise to calculate the amount
corresponding to 18 days of services of the Player under his new contract.
91. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player indeed found new employment with Al
Raed. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, its total value amounted to
USD 3,313,790, as follows:
Concept
Amount (USD)
Salaries August 2023 (pro rata)
41,056
Salaries September 2023 to June 2024
1,272,730
Salaries July 2024 to June 2025
1,700,004
Sign-on fee
300,000
TOTAL
3,313,790
•
•
•
Total duration of the new employment agreement: 679 days from 21 August 2023
to 30 June 2025.
18 days of service therefore are equivalent to USD 87,847.16.
USD 87,847.16 converted to Euros on 21 August 2023 equals approximately to EUR
80,760.
92. Thus, the Chamber concluded that between the date of early termination of the Contract
and its original expiry date, the average between his remuneration with the Club and his
current remuneration amounts to EUR 101,059.10, that is (EUR 121,358.20 + 80,760)/2).
93. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that, according to the copy of the Loan Agreement
concluded for the Player and provided by the Club, the latter paid a transfer fee of EUR
1,250,000 and subsequently concluded with him the Contract as from 6 September 2022
to 20 August 2023. By the same token, the club has presented a copy of the Services
Agreement, and seeks unamortized fees arising from both contracts.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-12510
94. However, the DRC was not convinced that the Club should receive these amounts. First,
because the Club failed to provide evidence of payment of the relevant fees to both Rostov
and the Company and therefore failed to meet its burden of proof that such costs were
made. Secondly, because the Contract was concluded for a period of slightly less than one
year, but for a period overlapping the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 seasons in Russia. As such,
the DRC understood that the Club expected the Player to provide services for a full season,
which he clearly did, except for 18 days in August 2023. Therefore, the DRC decided that
the fees and expenses incurred by Dynamo, if any (as they were not proven), were fully
amortised.
95. Consequently, taking into account all the above considerations and the specificities of the
present case, the Chamber decided that the Player shall pay to the Club the amount of EUR
101,059.10, which the DRC finds as a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present case.
96. Finally, taking into account the Club's request and the Chamber’s consistent practice in this
regard, the Chamber decided to award the Club interest on the aforementioned
compensation at the rate of 5% per annum from 3 August 2023 until the date of actual
payment.
97. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the
Regulations, Al Raed shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned amount of compensation.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
98. 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.
99. 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.
100. Equally, the Chamber highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in official
matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months.
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-12510
101. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Player must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Club within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the creditor, a restriction on playing in official
matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become immediately effective on
the Player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
102. By the same token, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club and the New
Club must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the respectively to
the Player and to the Club within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the
request of the relevant creditor, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration
periods shall become immediately effective on the Club or the New Club, as applicable, in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
103. The debtors shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the relevant creditors in their respective Bank Account Registration Forms,
which are attached to the present decision.
104. 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
105. 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.
106. 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.
107. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-12510
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, FC Dynamo Moscow, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent 1/Counterclaimant, Mathias Antonsen Normann, must pay to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent EUR 101,059.10 as compensation for breach of contract
without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 August 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
The Respondent 2, Al Raed, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned amount.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made by the Respondent
1/Counterclaimant and the Respondent 2 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 1/Counterclaimant shall be imposed with a restriction on playing in
official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of
the restriction shall be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
2. The Respondent 2 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.
3. 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 six months or by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
6.
The counterclaim of the Respondent 1/Counterclaimant is partially accepted.
7.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent 1/Counterclaimant EUR
46,951 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 August 2023
until the date of effective payment.
8.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made by the Claimant/CounterRespondent to the bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration
Form.
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-12510
9.
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 Claimant/Counter-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.
10. The consequences outlined above shall only be enforced at the request of the relevant
creditor in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players.
11. Any further claims of any of the parties are rejected.
12. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-12510
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 32