Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18190
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Cristopher Antonio Núñez González
BY:
Sihon GAUCI (Malta)
CLAIMANT:
Cristopher Antonio Núñez González, Costa Rica
Represented by Alberto Ruiz de Aguiar Díaz-Obregón & Botond Pinter
RESPONDENT:
PAS Lamia 1964 FC, Greece
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18190
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 July 2021, the Costa Rican player Cristopher Antonio Núñez González (hereinafter,
the Player or the Claimant) and the Greek club PAS Lamia 1964 FC (hereinafter, the Club or
the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid until
30 June 2025.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 2 of the Contract and its Annex, the Club undertook to pay the Player
(hereinafter, jointly referred to as the Parties) a monthly remuneration of EUR 800 net, as
well as an additional amount of EUR 356,000 net in the following 30 instalments:
3.
1.
EUR 9,900 net on 30 September 2022
16. EUR 11,380 net on 28 February 2024
2.
EUR 9,900 net on 30 October 2022
17. EUR 11,380 net on 30 March 2024
3.
EUR 9,900 net on 30 November 2022
18. EUR 11,380 net on 30 April 2024
4.
EUR 12,300 net on 30 December 2022
19. EUR 11,380 net on 30 May 2024
5.
EUR 9,900 net on 30 January 2023
20. EUR 13,780 net on 30 June 2024
6.
EUR 9,900 net on 28 February 2023
21. EUR 11,880 net on 30 September 2024
7.
EUR 9,900 net on 30 March 2023
22. EUR 12,880 net on 30 October 2024
8.
EUR 9,900 net on 30 April 2023
23. EUR 12,880 net on 30 November 2024
9.
EUR 9,900 net on 30 May 2023
24. EUR 15,280 net on 30 December 2024
10. EUR 12,300 net on 30 June 2023
25. EUR 12,880 net on 30 January 2025
11. EUR 11,380 net on 30 September 2023
26. EUR 12,880 net on 28 February 2025
12. EUR 11,380 net on 30 October 2023
27. EUR 12,880 net on 30 March 2025
13. EUR 13,380 net on 30 November 2023
28. EUR 12,880 net on 30 April 2025
14. EUR 13,780 net on 30 December 2023
29. EUR 12,880 net on 30 May 2025
15. EUR 11,380 net on 30 January 2024
30. EUR 15,280 net on 30 June 2025
In addition, in accordance with the Annex of the Contract, the Player was also entitled to,
inter alia, the following amounts:
➢ 2023/2024 season:
(i)
EUR 12,000 net if the Player participates in at least one official Super League 1
Championship game by 30 September 2023.
(ii) EUR 10,000 net if the Player participates in 80% of the official games in Super
League 1 Championship 2023/2024, with a minimum time of 60 minutes, and
the team qualifies to the first 10 places of the final ranking;
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18190
(iii) EUR 10,000 net if the Player participates in the semifinal games of the Greek
Cup, with a minimum of 45 minutes each game, and the team qualifies to the
final of the Greek Cup.
(iv) EUR 500 net for each goal or assist at the official games in Super League 1.
➢ 2024/2025 season:
(i)
4.
EUR 13,000 net if the Player participates in at least one official Super League 1
Championship game by 30 September 2024, payable on 30 September 2024.
On 12 November 2024, the Player put the Club in default, requesting the payment of EUR
57,160 per the following amounts and concepts. The Player granted the Club a deadline of
fifteen days to comply with its financial obligations.
o EUR 12,000 for the bonus (i) of the 2023/2024 season;
o EUR 10,000 for the bonus (ii) of the 2023/2024 season;
o EUR 10,000 for the bonus (iii) of the 2023/2024 season; and
o EUR 500 for the bonus (vi) of the 2023/2024 season.
o EUR 11,780 for June 2024;
o EUR 12,880 for October 2024;
5.
On 27 November 2024, the Club paid the Player EUR 30,000.
6.
Also on 27 November 2024, the Player confirmed receipt via email of the aforementioned
payment, and informed the Club that EUR 27,160, corresponding to the salaries for June
and October 2024, remained unpaid. The Player granted the Club a deadline of fifteen days
to comply with its financial obligations.
7.
On 13 December 2024, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract.
8.
On 7 January 2025, the Player concluded a new employment contract with the Costa Rican
club Club Sport Cartaginés, valid until the end of the Torneo Clausura 2025, in May 2025.
9.
Pursuant to Clause 8 of this new employment contract, the Player is entitled to receive a
monthly remuneration of CRC 1,650,000.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18190
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 11 February 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
Parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
11. The Player claimed to have had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract on 13
December 2024 based on the Club’s non-payments and after having put it in default, to no
avail.
12. The Player claimed to be entitled to the outstanding remuneration that remained unpaid
at the time of termination which, according to him, amounted to EUR 52,540 as follows:
o EUR 13,780 for June 2024, payable on 30 June 2024;
o EUR 13,000 for the bonus (i) of the 2024/2025 season.
o EUR 12,880 for October 2024, payable on 30 October 2024; and
o EUR 12,880 for November 2024, payable on 30 November 2024.
13. Furthermore, the Player also claimed to be entitled to compensation for breach of contract
in the total sum of EUR 79,080, after mitigating EUR 15,720 from the residual value of the
Contract, in accordance with the new contract concluded with Club Sport Cartaginés.
14. The Player requested the following relief:
“En atención a los hechos anteriores, se solicita a la Cámara de Resolución de Disputas que
condene a [el Club]:
o Al pago de la cantidad de CINCUENTA Y DOS MIL QUINIENTOS CUARENTA EUROS (52.540
€) en concepto de cantidades devengadas y adeudadas antes de la terminación
contractual, más los intereses al 5% anual.
o Al pago de la cantidad de SETENTA Y NUEVE MIL OCHENTA EUROS (79.080 €), en concepto
de indemnización reducida por la ruptura contractual debida al impago, más los
intereses del 5% anual”.
Freely translated into English:
“In view of the foregoing, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is requested to order [the Club]:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18190
o To pay the sum of FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY EURO (EUR 52,540)
as amounts accrued and owed prior to the termination of the contract, together with
interest at the rate of 5% per annum.
o To pay the sum of SEVENTY-NINE THOUSAND EIGHTY EURO (EUR 79,080) as mitigated
compensation for breach of contract due non-payment, plus interest at the rate of 5%
per annum”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
15. In its reply, the Club acknowledged not having paid the Player his full remuneration.
However, it contended that the outstanding salaries and bonuses owed to the Player did
not amount to EUR 52,540, as claimed by the latter, when the Player put the Club in default
on 12 November 2024. In this regard, the Club argued that it paid the bonus (i) for the
2023/2024 season on 10 May 2024 (along with other payments), and therefore contended
that this bonus had already been paid when the Player sent the aforementioned default
notice.
16. According to the Club, the outstanding amount due to the Player was EUR 15,160 after it
paid EUR 30,000 on 27 November 2024, and not EUR 27,160. In this regard, the Club
asserted that “when the Claimant sent his 2nd default notice by means of which he was giving
to the Respondent 15 days for the repayment of the salaries due, the Respondent had paid most
of the part of the claimed salaries and as such the Claimant had no reason to terminate his
contract, since based on the said second default notice only the amount of EUR 15,160 was due
which was not corresponding to two monthly salaries and therefore the termination was
unlawful and, in any event, abusive”.
17. Furthermore, the Club argued that, on 2 December 2024, the President of the Board of
Directors and the Player had a telephone conversation during which the Player was
informed that the outstanding amounts would be paid on 13 December 2024. According
to the Club, this constituted an informal agreement that was accepted by the Player. The
Club stated that the termination of the Contract was unexpected, and argued that the claim
for compensation should be dismissed based on the legal principle of venire contra factum
proprium, as the Player had agreed not to terminate the Contract on 12 December 2024
and to wait an additional day for payment of his salary.
18. The Club requested the following relief:
“On the basis of all the aforementioned and of the submitted evidence, we hereby
respectfully request from FIFA Football Tribunal purely for the sake of completeness of this
position, although it is a fact that ultimately no decision will be need to pass:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18190
i.
To rule that the amount payable by the Respondent to the Claimant is of 41,040 euros
net.
ii.
To rule that no compensation for termination is due to the Claimant.
iii.
To reject any other claim and assertion of the Claimant.
iv.
To rule that the Claimant shall bear any and all costs of the proceedings”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
19. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Single
Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 11 February 2025 and
submitted for decision on 30 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
January 2025 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.
20. Furthermore, the Single Judge 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), she is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Costa Rican player
and a Greek club.
21. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
22. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18190
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
23. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
24. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the Parties strongly disputed the justice of the early termination of the Contract by the
Player, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Club as
per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
25. The Single Judge first referred to the wording of art. 14bis of the Regulations, in accordance
with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their
due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline
of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligations.
26. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the aforementioned formal pre-requisites of
art. 14bis of the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
27. The Single Judge underscored that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract concluded between the
Parties.
28. With the above in mind, the Single Judge went on to examine the Parties’ position and
evidence submitted to the file, starting with the Player, who argued that he had a just cause
to unilaterally terminate the Contract based on the Club’s alleged non-payments and after
having put the Club in default, to no avail.
29. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that the Player provided written evidence of having
put the Club in default twice, on 12 and 27 November 2024, i.e., 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the Contract on 13 December 2025.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18190
30. In particular, the Single Judge noted that, in his default notice dated 12 November 2024,
the Player requested the payment of EUR 57,160 as follows:
o EUR 12,000 for the bonus (i) of the 2023/2024 season;
o EUR 10,000 for the bonus (ii) the 2023/2024 season;
o EUR 10,000 for the bonus (iii) at the end of the 2023/2024 season; and
o EUR 500 for the bonus (vi) at the end of the 2023/2024 season.
o EUR 11,780 for June 2024; and
o EUR 12,880 for October 2024.
31. The Single Judge further noted that, according to the Player, the aforementioned default
notice did not include the sum of EUR 13,000, which corresponded to the bonus (i) for the
2024/2025 season. According to the Player, this bonus had also been triggered when he
put the Club in default on 12 November 2024.
32. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that, on 27 November 2024, the Player confirmed
via email having received EUR 30,000, and granted the Club an additional deadline of 15
days to pay the remaining sum of EUR 27,160 which, according to the Player, corresponded
to the June and October 2024 salaries.
33. The Single Judge then turned to the arguments and evidence submitted by the Club,
according to whom the Player had no reason to terminate the Contract.
34. The Single Judge noted that, according to the Club, when the Player terminated the
Contract, the actual outstanding sum due to him was EUR 15,160 and not EUR 27,160,
based on the two payments of EUR 25,380 and EUR 30,000 made on 10 May and 27
November 2024, which allegedly covered, inter alia, the bonus (i) for the 2023/2024 season
and the June 2024 salary, respectively. The Club therefore asserted that there were not two
outstanding monthly salaries when the Player terminated the Contract.
35. In addition, the Club also alleged that the Parties had reached an informal agreement
whereby the Player accepted to receive the outstanding sums by 13 December 2024.
36. The Single Judge underscored that the first conclusion that follows from the Club’s position
is that it remained undisputed that, when the Player put it in default on 12 November 2024,
at least the June and October 2024 salaries were outstanding. Furthermore, the Single
Judge equally noted that the Club confirmed not having fully complied with the Player’s
default notices when the latter unilaterally terminated the Contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18190
37. Without prejudice to the foregoing, and after having carefully analysed the evidence
submitted by the Club, the Single Judge noted that the proof of payment of EUR 25,380
made on 10 May 2024 did not indicate the payment reference or its concept. In the absence
of any convincing evidence in this regard, the Single Judge concluded that the Club’s
position that the aforementioned payment covered, inter alia, the bonus (i) of the
2023/2024 season could not be upheld, and that this bonus therefore remained unpaid
when the Player put the Club in default on 12 November 2024.
38. In addition, the Single Judge noted that the Club did not advance any evidence to
substantiate that the payment of EUR 30,000, made on 27 November 2024, covered, inter
alia, the June 2024 salary. Accordingly, the Single Judge concluded that the June and
October 2024 salaries remained outstanding when the Player sent his second default
notice on 27 November 2024.
39. Lastly, the Single Judge noted that the Club failed to advance any evidence regarding the
alleged informal agreement reached with the Player. Consequently, the Single Judge
decided to reject the Club’s argument in this respect.
40. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Single Judge decided that the Player had a just
cause to unilaterally terminate the Contract on 13 December 2024 based on art. 14bis of
the Regulations, and that the Club is therefore held liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
41. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amounts to EUR 52,540 as follows:
o EUR 13,780 for June 2024, payable on 30 June 2024;
o EUR 13,000 for the bonus (i) of the 2024/2025 season, payable on 30 September
2024, which the Club confirmed to have been triggered;
o EUR 12,880 for October 2024, payable on 30 October 2024; and
o EUR 12,880 for November 2024, payable on 30 November 2024.
42. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Club is liable to pay to the Player the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e., EUR 52,540 as
detailed ut supra.
43. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Player interest
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18190
at the rate of 5% per annum on the outstanding amounts as from the date of filing his claim
until the date of effective payment.
44. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single Judge 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, taking into account the damages suffered, according
to the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts and circumstances
of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned.
45. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify
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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
46. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out
in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
47. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Single Judge proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Single Judge
concluded that the amount of EUR 94,960 (i.e., the residual value of the Contract from
December 2024 to June 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
48. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the Player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the Football Tribunal as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the
Player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
49. Indeed, the Player found employment with Club Sport Cartaginés. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the Player is entitled to approximately EUR 3,144 per
month. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant mitigated his damages in
the total amount of EUR 15,720 (i.e., EUR 3,144 times 5).
50. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according
to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18190
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Single Judge confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason, i.e., overdue payables by the Club and that,
therefore, the Player is entitled to an additional compensation of EUR 38,640,
corresponding to three monthly salaries under the Contract.
51. The Single Judge reminded the Parties that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii.)
of the Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the
prematurely terminated Contract.
52. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Single Judge noted that, in principle, the Player should be entitled
to compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 94,960 (i.e., EUR 94,960 minus
EUR 15,720 plus EUR 38,640, limited to a maximum of EUR 94,960).
53. However, as the Player had expressly limited his claim to EUR 131,620 in totum and had
already been awarded EUR 52,540 as outstanding remuneration, the Single Judge found
that it was bound by the principle of ne ultra petita. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded
that the Player should be awarded EUR 79,080 as compensation for breach of contract,
plus 5% interest per annum as from the date of the claim until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
54. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
55. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
56. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18190
57. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
58. The Single Judge 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
59. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the Parties.
60. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
61. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the Parties.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18190
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Cristopher Antonio Núñez González, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, PAS Lamia 1964 FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 52,540 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 11
February 2025 until the date of effective payment.
- EUR 79,080 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as from
11 February 2025 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
5.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-18190
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 15