DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16854
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Maritu
Oscar
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
CLAIMANT:
Maritu Oscar, Congo DR
Represented by Yuan Tie
RESPONDENT:
Cangzhou Mighty Lions FC, China PR
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16854
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 16 February 2020, the Congolese player Maritu Oscar (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Chinese club Cangzhou Mighty Lions FC (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) at the time known as “Shijiazhuang Yongchang Football Club”, entered into an
employment agreement (hereinafter: the 2020 Contract) valid as from 15 February 2020
until 31 December 2022.
2.
In accordance with the 2020 Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant
inter alia as follows:
“(1) In year 2020, [the Claimant] is entitled of net salary at 1,300,000 (one million three hundred
thousand) USD.
In year 2021, if [the Respondent] stay in Chinese Super League, [the Claimant] is entitled of net
salary at 1,500,000 (one million five hundred thousand) USD.
In year 2022, if [the Respondent] stay in Chinese Super League, [the Claimant] is entitled of net
salary at 1,800,000 (one million three[sic] hundred thousand) USD.
If [the Respondent] relegate to the second division, [the Claimant]’s salary shall remain the same
as last year
During the contractual period, the winning bonus per league match is 8000USD net while draw
bonus per league match is 4000USD net;”
3.
On 29 November 2023, the parties signed a settlement agreement (hereinafter: the
Settlement Agreement) which provided, inter alia, the following:
A. “On February 16, 2020, the Parties signed an Employment Contract for Professional Football
Player (“Contract”). The Contract is valid until December 31, 2022.
B. On March 28, 2023, the Parties signed an Employment Contract for Professional Football
Player (“Contract”). The Contract is valid until December 31, 2023.
C. The Parties agree to amend the payment terms of the Contracts, as per this Settlement
Agreement.
D. Under the Contracts[sic], the Player’s remaining unconditional dues are USD 1,649,000 net
(USD 1,420,000 net for 2022, USD 169,000 net for 2023 and USD 60,000 net for Goals Bonus
of 2023).
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16854
E. On a binding basis, the Parties intend to agree, in this Agreement, a full and final settlement
of Claims (as defined below) that the Player may have against the Club as of this Agreement’s
date.
[...]
1.1 The Club shall pay the Settlement Sum to the Player’s designated bank account in full and
final settlement of all Claims by the Player against the Club as follows:
(1) USD 100,000 in around 10 days after both Parties signed this Agreement’
(2) USD 309,800 on or before April 30, 2024;
(3) USD 309,800 on or before June 30, 2024;
(4) USD 309,800 on or before August 31, 2024;
(5) USD 309,800 on or before October 31, 2024;
(6) USD 309,800 on or before December 31, 2024.
1.2 If the last day of the above time limits is an official holiday or a non-business day in the
People’s Republic of China (“China”), the deadline shall be carried forward to the first subsequent
business day.”
4.
On 15 January 2024, the parties signed a new employment contract (hereinafter: the 2024
Contract) valid as from 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2024.
5.
In accordance with the 2024 Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the
following remuneration:
“USD 1,085,000 [ . . . ] from 1st / January / 2024 [ . . . ] until 31st / December / 2024 before tax,
which shall amount to USD 600,000 after tax for reference, [sic]
The [Respondent] has paid priority payments USD 100,000 to the [Claimant], and the remaining
portion will be paid on an average monthly monthly basis
2. The annual salaries shall be paid to [the Claimant] in equal monthly installments. [The
Claimant] shall pay the salary [ . . . ] for the last month [ . . . ] on the 20th of every month. In the
event the above-mentioned payment due date falls on a statutory holiday, the payment due date
shall be extended to the first working day following the holiday.”
6.
The 2024 Contract further provided:
“5. Before-tax amounts under this Contract refer to amounts including all taxes and fees that
[the Claimant] shall pay arising from the income obtained from [the Respondent]. Before [the
Respondent] pays [the Claimant] each installment of the amounts agreed under this Contract,
[the Respondent] shall be responsible for the withholding and payment of income tax due from
[the Claimant] in Mainland China from the before-tax amount payable to [the Claimant in
accordance with the relevant laws and regulations of the People’s Republic of China [ . . . ]. Any
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16854
taxes, expenses, levies, etc. that might be originated in any country or region outside of Mainland
China shall be exclusively declared, paid and borne by [the Claimant].
6. The Parties understand and agreed[sic] that the after-tax amounts under this Contract refer
to amounts after deducting the taxes to be paid in Mainland China and such amounts are
stipulated just for reference. The after-tax amount that [the Claimant] actually receives shall be
the amount net of taxes to be paid in Mainland China.
[...]
5. [The Respondent] has the right to terminate this Contract by notifying [the Claimant] in writing
and claim against [the Claimant] for default liability if any of the following events occurs:
5.1 [The Claimant] commits material breach of this Contract;
[...]
6. [The Claimant] has the right to terminate this contract by notifying [the Respondent] in writing
if any of the following events occurs[sic]:
6.1 [The Respondent] fails to pay salary to [the Claimant] for two (2) months and fails to remedy
such default within 15 (fifteen) days upon receipt of [the Claimant]’s written notification.
[...]
This Contract shall be governed by the FIFA Regulations.”
7.
On 25 August 2024, the Player did not report to the Club.
8.
On 29 August 2024, the Respondent sent to the Claimant the following warning letter
(hereinafter: the Warning Letter):
“The first team of [the Respondent] has gathered and started training in Cangzhou on August
25th. As of today, you have been absent from work for 5 days. Due to your failure to return to
the team on time and despite multiple communications with the club, you still refused to return
and left Chine without an authorization by the club on August 28th, the [Respondent] now
requires you to return within 7 days, that is, before September 5th. If you fail to return to the
team before September 5th, the club will take measures including but not limited to the
following:
1. According to the [2024 Contract] and the club’s management regulations, you will be fined
twice your daily salary ($3350) for each day of absenteeism;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16854
2. [The Respondent] will terminate the [2024 Contract] with you on September 6th and require
you to bear legal responsibilities for violating the [2024 Contract], including but not limited
to compensating for the remaining contract salary and paying a penalty of 5 million euros [
. . . ].”
9.
On 6 September 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent citing the
following outstanding remuneration and providing the Respondent 15 days to cure the
default:
From the Settlement Agreement:
-
USD 309,800 due 30 June 2024
USD 309,800 due 31 August 2024
From the 2024 Contract:
- USD 83,300 representing two missed salary payments
10. On 9 September 2024, the Respondent replied (hereinafter: the Club Reply) stating, inter
alia, the following:
“1. Although you cannot contact with the [Respondent]’s head coach [ . . . ] through Wechat, you
can still stay in touch with the club through email and other means. Not having a WeChat friends
relationship with the head coach is not a legitimate reason for your absenteeism;
2. The [Respondent] will pay the amount which is due on June 30, 2024 stipulated in the
“Settlement Agreement”, by September 21. However, [the Claimant] must return to the team
immediately. Late payment is not a valid reason for your refusal to return to the team. If you
continue to refuse to return to the team, the club will terminate the [2024 Contract] for just
cause and hold you accountable for breach of contract.”
11. On 20 September 2024, the Respondent sent a Termination Letter to the Claimant, which
provided, inter alia, the following:
“Despite having received the [Warning Letter] and [Club Reply] you still refused to return to the
team and consequently missed the Chinese Super League match [ . . . ] on September 14. [ . . . ]
[Y]our actions have seriously violated the employment contract. The club has now decided to
take the following measures against you:
1. As of September 19, the “Employment Contract for Professional Football Player” signed by
both parties is terminated, and the club will no longer pay the salary for the remaining term
of the contract;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16854
2. From August 25 to September 19, you were absent from work for a total of 26 days.
According to the [2024 Contract] for each day of absence, you will be fined twice your daily
salary ($3,350), amounting to a total find of $87,100 [ . . . ];
3. The club requires you to bear the legal responsibility for breaching the [2024 Contract],
including compensating the remaining contract wages of $200,000 [ . . . ] and paying a
penalty of €5,000,000 [ . . . ] in accordance with Clause 5.5 of Article 9 of the [2024 Contract].”
12. Following a press release issued by the Claimant regarding the unpaid wages, the Player’s
departure from the Club, the Respondent issued a statement which included the following:
“On August 25, 2024, the team ended its vacation and began to prepare for the following
competitions. [The Claimant] did not return on time as scheduled but left China without prior
reporting to the [Respondent] and the head coach. [The Claimant] then expressed to the
[Respondent] that he would return after resolving historical wage arrears. Regarding this
behavior, the [Respondent] expressed great understanding. At the same time, we were in
continuous communications with him, hoping that he would express his demands through
proper channels since current season came to the final stage. However, after the two parties
basically reached an agreement and his requirements were met, he put forward new return
conditions again, which, however, cannot be met in the short term given the [Respondent]’s real
conditions.
In this case, 26 days after [the Claimant] left the team without approval, the Club sent him a
“Termination Letter”, informing him that the Club would no longer pay his wages for the
remaining term of the contract. But for the historical wage arrears and payable wages, the Club
will continue to communicate with the player and promise to properly resolve relevant
problems.”
13. According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant remained unemployed
following the alleged termination of the 2024 Contract.
14. The Claimant confirmed that he remained unemployed following the alleged termination.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 31 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
16. The Claimant confirmed in his statement of claim that the salaries from May 2024 “till now”
have not been paid.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16854
17. The Claimant stated that on 20 August 2024, he asked the Respondent to remit overdue
payables, attaching a copy of the Settlement Agreement in a WeChat message to the Club’s
head coach.
18. The Claimant argued that rather than immediately terminating the 2024 Contract, he did
not return to the Club and asked the Club to fulfil its payment obligations.
19. The Claimant argued that not returning to the Club left more room to remedy the default
and avoid the termination or the contractual relationship and that the Club at this point
should have cured its breach of the contract within a reasonable time period (15 days) to
avoid termination.
20. The Claimant said that on 14 September 2024 he informed the Respondent that he would
be willing to return to the Club if the Respondent paid him RMB 200,000 so that the Player
could repay a debt he had incurred.
21. The Claimant explained that the monthly salary for the 2024 Contract corresponded to USD
41,666.67 and the outstanding amount from the Settlement Agreement USD 1,239,200.
22. The Claimant’s request for relief was as follows:
“Prayers For Relief
Prayer 1: [The Claimant] has the right to terminate the employment contract with [the
Respondent] for just cause pursuant to Article 14 and Article 14bis of the FlFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) / the [Respondent] has terminated the employment
contract with [the Claimant] without just cause.
Prayer 2: [The Respondent] shall pay [the Claimant] the salary of 2024 in arrears (totaling USD
333,333.33 net), plus interest. The interest is calculated at an annual interest rate of 5% from
September 20, 2024 to the date of payment.
Prayer 3: [The Respondent] shall pay [the Claimant] the outstanding amount (totaling USD
1,239,200 net) stipulated in the Settlement Agreement, plus interest. The interest is calculated at
an annual interest rate of 5% from September 20, 2024 to the date of payment.
Prayer 4: [The Respondent] shall pay [the Claimant] compensation of USD 416,666.67 (net) for
its unjustified termination of the employment contract.
Prayer 5: Disciplinary sanctions shall be imposed on [the Respondent] in accordance with the
provisions of the RSTP.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16854
b. Position of the Respondent
23. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim within the time
limit.
c. Unsolicited Correspondence of the Respondent
24. On 2 December 2024, the Respondent submitted an unsolicited correspondence
requesting an extension of the time limit.
25. On 2 December 2024, the FIFA general secretariat informed the parties that it was not in a
position to grant the request because deadline extensions may only be granted if a
substantiated request is submitted before the time limit expires (cf. art. 11, par. 4 and 6 of
the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16854
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
26. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 31 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 30 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the January 2025 edition
of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable
to the matter at hand.
27. Furthermore, 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, par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Congolese player
and a Chinese club.
28. 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. 29 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition), the January 2025
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
29. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
30. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16854
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
31. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that the
underlying question to be answered was whether Respondent terminated the 2024
Contract with just cause.
32. The Chamber recalled that according to the Claimant, he had a right to terminate with just
cause, but requested subsidiarily, that the DRC find the Club terminated without just cause.
33. Because the Respondent did not reply to the claim, the Chamber understood that it would
need to base its analysis solely on the evidence submitted by the Claimant (cf., art. 21, par.
1 of the Procedural Rules).
34. The Chamber first noted that the Claimant provided evidence, and the Respondent did not
dispute, that a valid settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) and a subsequent
employment agreement (the 2024 Contract) were concluded between the parties, under
each of which at the time of the default notice the Respondent was owed outstanding
remuneration, as follows:
From the Settlement Agreement:
- USD 309,800 due 30 June 2024
- USD 309,800 due 31 August 2024
From the 2024 Contract:
- USD 83,300 representing two missed salary payments
35. The Chamber further noted that the 2024 Contract did not stipulate that the financial
obligations from the 2024 Contract supersede all prior agreements, including the
Settlement Agreement, and further that the Respondent in its letters acknowledged
payments owed to the Claimant under the Settlement Agreement as well as the 2024
Contract.
36. The Chamber therefore acknowledged that its task was to determine (1) which party
terminated the 2024 Contract, if any; (2) in the event of termination, whether the relevant
party terminated with or without just cause; and (3) the consequences of the termination,
as applicable.
Was the 2024 Contract terminated and if so, by whom?
37. The Chamber noted that the Claimant made reference to termination for just cause
pursuant to art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations on account of outstanding remuneration.
However, the Chamber also observed that per the Claimant’s own admission, he did not in
fact terminate the 2024 Contract; rather, he only asserted in his statement of claim that he
“has the right” to do so.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16854
38. Consequently, in light of the foregoing, the Chamber found that neither art. 14bis nor art.
14 of the Regulations applied in the context of whether the Claimant terminated.
39. The Chamber analysed further whether the Respondent terminated the 2024 Contract.
40. In this context, the Chamber referred to the Respondent’s letter dated 20 September 2024,
which provided, inter alia, that on account of the Player’s absence, “[a]s of September 19, the
[2024 Contract] is terminated, and the club will no longer pay the salary for the remaining term
of the contract.”
41. The above letter in the Chamber’s view clearly demonstrated that the Respondent was the
one to terminate the 2024 Contract, effective as from 19 September 2024.
Did the Respondent terminate without just cause?
42. The Chamber recalled that the Respondent in the termination and in the other letters,
referenced the Player’s absence from the Club.
43. At this stage, the Chamber observed that the Claimant acknowledged he left the Club on
25 August 2024, arguing that he would not return until the Club fulfilled its financial
obligation. The DRC further observed that the Respondent issued to the Claimant warnings
and other communications stating that it demanded the Claimant to return, and, inter alia,
on 9 September 2024, that although he could not contact the head coach he could remain
in contact with the Club through email and other means. The Respondent further stated
that it would pay the amount due on 30 June 2024 from the Settlement Agreement “by 21
September” but added that the Claimant needed to return immediately, further stating “Late
payment is not a valid reason for your refusal to return to the team.”
44. The Chamber noted that in the absence of the reply by the Respondent, it did not possess
a formal reason provided by the Respondent for terminating the 2024 Contract. However,
considering the evidence submitted by the Claimant, the Chamber found that the
Respondent appeared to acknowledge in its correspondences that it failed to pay the
Player a significant part of his remuneration, and also that the Claimant could no longer
contact the head coach.
45. In view of this, the Chamber determined that even factoring in the purported reasons
provided by the Club in its termination letter, the Player’s absence – unlike what was written
in the letter by the Club – would appear to be excused as the Player argued he could no
longer justifiably return to the Club in light of the prolonged debt of the Club.
46. Similarly, the Chamber found that even if the Player’s absence were found unjustified, it
was not convinced that the termination by the Respondent took place as an ultima ratio
measure in that it could still have adopted more lenient measures against the Player (such
as a fine, suspension and/or disciplinary proceedings).
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16854
47. Consequently, the Chamber found that the Respondent terminated the 2024 Contract on
19 September 2024 without just cause.
ii. Consequences
48. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
49. The Chamber took note that the Claimant grouped the outstanding remuneration at the
time of termination together with compensation, citing the total amounts remaining
outstanding from the Settlement Agreement plus the 2024 Contract, in addition to USD
416,667 net compensation attribued to ”the standards stipulated in the Labor Contract Law
of the People's Republic of China” but providing no support of the latter.
50. The Chamber noted the Claimant provided that USD 333,333 net were due from the 2024
Contract salaries (i.e., the equivalent of 8 salaries May 2024 until December 2024), as well
as USD 1,239,200 net from the Settlement Agreement.
51. The Chamber recalled that the monthly salary pursuant to the Contract amounted to USD
41,666.67 net and that, on account of the 2024 Contract terminating on 19 September
2024, the September 2024 salary from the 2024 Contract was part of the outstanding
remuneration.
52. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent was liable to pay to the Claimant the total
amount of USD 208,333.35 (i.e., 5 times USD 41,666.67) due under the 2024 Contract.
53. From the Settlement Agreement, the Chamber noted that the third and fourth payments
in the combined amount of USD 619,600 were already past due, and the final two (fifth and
sixth) payments, also in the combined amount of USD 619,600, fell due during the course
of the proceedings. The Chamber therefore awarded these payments, for a complete
amount of USD 1,239,200 net due from the Settlement Agreement as requested, and in
accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
54. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as requested from 20 September 2024 on USD
827,933.35 net (i.e., USD 208,333.35 in overdue salaries from the 2024 Contract plus USD
619,000 past due for the third and fourth instalment from the Settlement Agreement) until
the date of effective payment. With regard to the final two instalments of the Settlement
Agreement, once again in line with the constant practice of the Chamber in this regard, the
latter awarded interest of 5% p.a. on such amounts from the day following their respective
due dates until the date of effective payment.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16854
55. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided
for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the
country concerned and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration
and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract,
the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending
on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
56. 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.
57. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
58. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the 2024
Contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 125,000.01 net (i.e., the 3 months remaining
on the 2024 Contract times the monthly rate of USD 41,666.67 net) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
59. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
60. Indeed, the Player was not able to find new employment after the termination and
therefore failed to mitigate his damages.
61. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay to the Player the amount
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16854
of USD 125,000.01, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
62. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the amounts were requested by the Claimant as
“net” which the Chamber viewed as being contractually supported.
63. For completeness, the Chamber turned once more to the Player’s request for an additional
USD 416,667 pursuant to Chinese labor law. The Chamber observed that the Claimant did
not provide an explanation for the basis for this claim and, in any event, the 2024 Contract
did not make reference to the same but rather provided that it shall be governed by the
FIFA Regulations. The Chamber therefore rejected this portion of the request.
64. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 20 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations – Sporting Sanctions
65. In continuation, the DRC focused on the further consequences of the breach of contract in
question and, in this respect, it addressed the question of sporting sanctions against the
Club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision stipulates that,
in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on
any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period.
66. In this respect, the Chamber referred to item 7 of the Definitions section of the Regulations,
which stipulates, inter alia, that the protected period shall last “for three entire seasons or
three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two
years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is
concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional.”
67. In this context, the DRC took note that the Player was born on 17 August 1999 and the 2024
Contract was concluded on 15 January 2024. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Club
terminated the 2024 Contract without just cause on 19 September 2024. The breach of
contract by the Club had therefore occurred within the protected period.
68. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Club had already been held liable of breaching
other players’ contracts without just cause in several recent occasions, in particular in cases
FPSD-8320 notified to the parties 13 March 2023; FPSD-9147 notified to the parties 12 June
2023; and FPSD-16933 notified to the parties 17 January 2025.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16854
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
69. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 24 par. 3
lit. a) of the Regulations, the consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in due time
may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has imposed a sporting sanction on the basis
of art. 17 in the same case.
70. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that the consequences for failure to pay relevant
amounts in due time envisaged by art. 24 of the Regulations were excluded in the present
matter, and that should the Respondent fail to timely comply with this decision, it would
be for the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to adopt the necessary measures in accordance
with the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
d. Costs
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16854
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Maritu Oscar, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Cangzhou Mighty Lions FC, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- USD 827,933.35 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20
September 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 309,800 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
November 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 309,800 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2025 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 125,000.01 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 20 September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
6.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16854
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 – 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. 18