Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4989
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 May 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ivan Paurević
COMPOSITION:
ONGARO, Omar (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
SARTORI, Stefano (Italy), Member
VAURASI, Laurel (Fiji), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Ivan Paurević, Croatia
Represented by Tarik Trbić (Union of Professional Football Players of
Bosnia and Herzegovina)
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Riga FC, Latvia
Represented by Evgeny Krechetov
Page 2
REF FPSD-4989
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 June 2021, the Croatian player, Mr Ivan Paurević (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent), and the Latvian club, Riga FC (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract valid as from 16 June
2021 until 30 November 2022 (hereinafter: the employment contract).
2.
Pursuant to clauses 1.3 and 1.4 of the employment contract, it could be extended unilaterally
by the club from 1 December 2022 until 30 November 2023. Said option should be exercised
until 30 October 2022.
3.
In accordance with clause 4 of the employment contract, the player would be entitled to a
monthly remuneration of: (i) EUR 14,000 net for the 2021/2022 season; and (ii) EUR 15,000
net for the 2022/2023, in case of extension of the employment contract.
4.
The remuneration should be paid by the club to the player in a monthly basis, by the 20th
day of the following month (cf. clause 3.1.1 of the employment contract).
5.
Finally, clause 5.5 of the employment contract read, inter alia, as follows: “the contract may
be terminated unilaterally on the part of [the player], if the club fails to perform its
obligations in accordance with the contract and the sums of money stipulated in the
contract are not paid for 2 months”.
6.
On 20 December 2021, the player sent the club a default notice requesting payment of EUR
29,600, corresponding to the balance of the salaries of June, July, August, and September
2021, plus the full salaries of October and November 2021. The player referred to art. 14bis
of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and granted the club 15
days to cure the breach.
7.
By letter dated 27 May 2021 but sent on 27 December 2021, the player acknowledged receipt
of a partial payment by the club amounting to EUR 7,600, however the player alleged both
that he had been “kicked out” of the team’s group in the electronic application WhatsApp
and that he had been verbally informed that his services would not be needed for the 2022
season. He requested the club to fulfill its contractual obligations.
8.
On 2 January 2022, the player and a club’s representative exchanged messages via WhatsApp
regarding the flights tickets to return to Riga, Latvia.
9.
On 5 January 2022, the following events took place:
a. the club sent the player an invitation to join the team’s new group in WhatsApp;
b. the player’s legal representative and a club’s representative exchanged messages
via WhatsApp regarding an offer for the termination of the employment contract
Page 3
REF FPSD-4989
by mutual consent. A draft of a termination agreement was also sent by the player
to the club, reading that the employment relationship would be terminated with
immediate effect as from 3 January 2022 and the player would be entitled to receive
EUR 133,000 as the partial salary of October 2021, the salaries of November and
December 2021, and 7 additional salaries;
c. the club sent the player and his legal representative a letter acknowledging that he
had missed training and encouraging him to resume his work in accordance with
the team’s timetable.
10. On 6 January 2022, the player notified the club the termination of the employment contract
due to overdue payables only (hereinafter: the termination notice). In this opportunity, the
player inter alia pointed out that he would not return to the club anymore, as well as that:
“we are going to claim for the outstanding debts plus the rest of the agreement until 30
June 2022, plus 5% interest rate”.
11. On the same date, i.e. 6 January 2022, the club replied to the player’s termination notice and
argued that “there [was] no overdue debt of two monthly salaries towards the football
player”. Moreover, it stressed that there was no ground for a premature termination of the
employment contract, entailing that the player should “return to the fulfillment of his
professional obligations and to renew trainings with the team”.
12. On 7 January 2022, the player sent the club another letter highlighting that he had been
excluded from the WhatsApp group therefore did not receive the appropriate information
about the trainings. In addition, the player requested the club to “act in accordance with the
proposal for a mutual termination” between the parties sent to the official email of the club.
13. Also on 7 January 2022, the club informed that the player had left the team group in
WhatsApp by his own choice but anyway was provided with a copy of the timetable on the
previous day. Likewise, the club requested the player to avail himself for the next
appointments with the team.
14. On 8 January 2022, the club sent the player a letter acknowledging that he had missed the
COVID-19 test arranged for the team, as well as proposing an alternative exam in order to
enable him to join the training camp taking place in Dubai on the following week. The player
was also provided with flight tickets from Riga to Dubai for the same date.
15. On 10 January 2022, the player’s legal representative sent the club a second draft of a
termination agreement reading that the employment contract would be terminated with
immediate effect as from said date. Accordingly, the player would be entitled to receive the
total amount of EUR 104,000, corresponding to the outstanding salaries of November and
December 2021 plus 6 additional salaries.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4989
16. Also on 10 January 2022, the club sent the player a letter acknowledging receipt of the draft
of the termination agreement and arguing that the signature was not even being considered.
The club once again requested the player to resume his services.
17. On 13 January 2022, the club wrote to the player and acknowledged that he missed 4 days
of the training camp “without any valid reason” and should immediately fulfill his contractual
obligations.
18. On 17 January 2022, the club wrote to the player and acknowledged that he missed 8 days
of the training camp “without any valid reason” and should immediately fulfill his contractual
obligations.
19. On 26 January 2022, the club wrote to the player and acknowledged that he missed 17 days
of the training camp “without any valid reason” and should immediately fulfill his contractual
obligations.
20. On 31 January 2022, the club wrote to the player and acknowledged that he missed 22 days
of the training camp “without any valid reason” and kept ignoring the latest
correspondences. Therefore, the club informed that the payment of the player’s salaries
would be suspended.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
21. On 31 January 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of the player
22. In his claim, the player argued that he complied with all his obligations under the employment
contract, however the club failed to honour its financial duties. In particular, the player
clarified that the club have not paid a significant part of his remuneration and was
subsequently informed that his services were not required anymore. As such, he claimed that,
after being excluded from the team’s group in WhatsApp, he was “de facto excluded from
the team as he did not receive any information whatsoever any longer”.
23. Against this background, the player referred to his default notices and concluded that the
employment contract was terminated with just cause. As a consequence, he claimed to be
entitled to receive his outstanding salaries and compensation for breach of contract, as
follows:
a. EUR 39,300 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due
dates, broken down as follows:
(i)
EUR 400 net as the balance of his salary of June 2021;
Page 5
REF FPSD-4989
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
EUR 400 net as the balance of his salary of July 2021;
EUR 400 net as the balance of his salary of August 2021;
EUR 400 net as the balance of his salary of September 2021;
EUR 7,000 net as the balance of his salary of October 2021;
EUR 14,000 net as his full salary of November 2021;
EUR 14,000 net as his full salary of December 2021; and
EUR 2,700 net as his pro rata salary of January 2022 (i.e. until the date of
the termination).
b. EUR 331,300 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 3 July 2020, broken down as follows:
(i)
EUR 151,300 net as the residual salaries for the 2021/2022 season (i.e. until
30 November 2021); and
(ii)
EUR 180,000 net as the entire remuneration for the 2022/2023 season,
because “the player was counting on staying at the club for many years,
and the club did not allow him to do so, in this regard, the player must be
granted compensation for the contract until 2023”.
c. EUR 84,000 net as additional compensation plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 July
2020, corresponding to 6 monthly salaries.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the club
24. On 21 February 2022, the club submitted its reply to the player’s claim and filed a
counterclaim against him.
25. In accordance with the club, despite the player’s termination notice dated 6 January 2022,
the parties kept exchanging correspondences and drafts of a termination agreement.
Consequently, the club considers that the player “never confirmed that he terminated the
employment contract, while being many times informed by the club about the missed
trainings and invited to join the team”. It followed, in the club’s view, that the employment
contract should be deemed de facto terminated as from the date of the player’s claim before
the Football Tribunal (i.e. 11 January 2022).
26. In continuation, the club strongly asserts that the abovementioned termination took place
without just cause. In this connection, the club made inter alia the following remarks:
a. the default notices dated 20 and 27 December 2021 were sent by a non-authorized
representative therefore are to be considered null and void;
b. when the player arrived in Riga, Latvia he expressed his desire to rent a car,
amounting to a monthly expense of EUR 400. In spite of procuring the rental with
the company called Adam Auto SIA, the club clarified that it did not have any
contractual obligation to provide the player with a car, therefore that said amount
Page 6
REF FPSD-4989
should be deducted from his monthly remuneration. Furthermore, on 19 November
2021 the player and his teammates went on vacations until 5 January 2022, reason
why the player decided to return the car on 29 November 2021 i.e. in order to avoid
expenses during the break. Consequently, and conversely to the player’s statement
of claim, there were no outstanding salaries for the period between June and
September 2021;
c. pursuant to clause 3.1.1. of the employment contract, every monthly salary had to
be paid on the 20th day of the following month. As such, by the moment the
warning dated 20 December 2021 and the termination notice were delivered, less
than one monthly salary was outstanding – and, in any event, the total outstanding
salary never exceeded the threshold set out in art. 14bis of the FIFA RSTP;
d. likewise, there was no significant breach of contract capable of justifying a
termination on the basis of art. 14 of the FIFA RSTP (cf. the jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport – CAS). On the contrary,
the player acted in bad faith and tried to force the club to terminate their
employment relationship. In the club’s words: “the player simply used the
temporal financial difficulties of the club that led to some non-significant delays
in payments to terminate the employment contract”; and
e. the player’s allegations as to his exclusion from the WhatsApp group of the team
were “ridiculous” because: “since the team was on holydays from 19 November
2021 till 5 January 2022 and the Club used to form a new group for a new season
(that lasts within a calendar year in Latvia). So, the Player was excluded from the
WhatsApp group together with other players in the beginning of December and
had never questioned this purely technical action before. At the end of the day,
no communication was necessary during the holydays, while in the beginning of
January 2022 the Player was provided with respective air tickets and was invited
to join the WhatsApp group, as were the other players”. The player was the one
who informed that he did not want to return and wanted to negotiate a
termination. What is more, the club pointed out that the player failed to confirm
the date for the flight tickets, as well as to join the new WhatsApp group for the
next season.
27. In light of the above, the club concluded that the player should be liable to consequences of
an unlawful termination. To this end, it claimed to be entitled to compensation for breach of
contract amounting to EUR 154,000 (i.e. the residual value of the employment contract,
corresponding to the salaries from January until November 2022, being EUR 14,000 each).
28. Lastly, the club requested 5% interest p.a. on the compensation as from 12 January 2022
until the date of effective payment.
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the player
29. On 22 March 2022, the player submitted his reply to the counterclaim lodged by the club
against him.
Page 7
REF FPSD-4989
30. In doing so, he initially pointed out that the club was not authorized to deduct any amount
from his salary, such as the alleged rental of a car. He also remarked that the invoices filed by
the club in support of its allegations were issued against itself and could not be imposed on
the player as they lack contractual basis.
31. Subsequently, the player established that by 20 December 2021, the sum of EUR 34,990 was
outstanding since the club had only pay him EUR 49,010 out of the EUR 84,000 contractually
agreed upon. Notwithstanding, the player recalled that the club did only pay an amount of
EUR 7,600 within the deadline granted in the notice. Moreover, the club made a partial
payment of EUR 6,000 on 3 January 2022 but anyway failed to pay the entire debt by the
time of the termination (i.e. 6 January 2022).
32. Against this background, the player highlighted that the club did only react to his notices
after the termination of the employment contract entailing that he “could not in good faith
believe that the club was still intending to honour the employment contract since the latter
had been in breach of its essential obligation, had not replied to any default notice and
had expelled the player from the rest of the team”. In this context, the player also clarified
that the club’s allegations as to the non-authorization of his legal representative was
groundless bearing in mind that he had always been represented by the same person
throughout all the conversations with the club and the later had never raised any doubt
and/or requested clarification in this respect.
33. The player moreover reiterated his argumentation as to his removal from the WhatsApp
group, and argued that “whether this occurred during holidays or not is irrelevant since the
purpose of such group is actually to ensure a constant contact with players, all the more
during off periods to inform them on the resumption of trainings and expected traveling
dates”.
34. Based on the above, the player confirmed his position as to the just cause for the termination
of the employment contract. Alternatively, he mentioned that – even if considered that the
termination took place without just cause – no compensation should be due to the club
insofar as it demonstrated a clear lack of interest and was repeatedly in breach of its financial
duties.
35. Lastly, the player amended his claim and argued that his outstanding remuneration amounts
to EUR 15,390, being EUR 1,390 as the balance of the salaries between June and November
2021; plus EUR 14,000 as the salary of December 2021 (which could also be awarded as part
of the compensation).
d. Additional comments of the club
36. In view of the player’s amendment to the claim, the club was invited to provide additional
comments, having filed its submission on 25 April 2022.
Page 8
REF FPSD-4989
37. In this connection, the club highlighted that the player decreased his claim for outstanding
remuneration by EUR 23,910. Furthermore, the club reiterated its argumentation as to the
car arrangement between the parties and claimed that the total amount paid to the player
amounts to EUR 92,510 (i.e. EUR 90,310 if the rental costs are deducted).
38. Subsequently, the club stressed that the salary of June 2021 should be paid pro rata, taking
into consideration that the player only worked half of the month. Consequently, the club
argued that the player was entitled to a total amount of EUR 91,000, broken down as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
EUR 7,000 as the salary of June 2021;
EUR 14,000 as the salary of July 2021;
EUR 14,000 as the salary of August 2021;
EUR 14,000 as the salary of September 2021;
EUR 14,000 as the salary of October 2021;
EUR 14,000 as the salary of November 2021; and
EUR 14,000 as the salary of December 2021.
39. On the other hand, the club confirmed having paid EUR 90,310 to the player (without rental
costs). Thus, the club concluded that the player’s claim is groundless and reiterated its prayers
for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. 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 31 January 2022 and submitted for decision
on 19 May 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
41. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Croatian player and
a Latvian club.
42. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 January 2022, the August 2021 edition
Page 9
REF FPSD-4989
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
43. 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
44. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However,
the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of
the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
45. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note that the parties strongly dispute when the employment contract was
terminated, whether the player had just cause to do so, and the consequences that follow.
46. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the following:
a. When was the employment contract terminated?
b. Did the termination take place with just cause in line with the Regulations?
c. Which are the consequences that follow?
47. The DRC proceeded then to analyse each matter.
A. When was the employment contract terminated?
48. First and foremost, the Chamber noted that the parties diverge as regards to the date of
termination of the employment contract: whereas the player argues that it was terminated
by way of his termination notice dated 6 January 2021, the club considers that because the
player did not expressly confirm his intention to terminate the employment contract in the
subsequent correspondences, it should only be deemed de facto terminated with the filing
of this claim before the Football Tribunal (i.e. 31 January 2022).
Page 10
REF FPSD-4989
49. With due consideration of the above, the members of the DRC went on analysing the
documentation on file and firmly to determined that the contents of the termination notice
dated 6 January 2022 are clear and unequivocal. In particular, they highlighted that the
document expressly reads that: (i) the employment relationship between the parties was
terminated due to the overdue payables; (ii) the player would no longer render services to
the club; and (iii) the player deemed to be entitled to compensation and would seek relief
before the relevant courts in case the club did not agree to find a common (financial) ground
for a mutual agreement.
50. In parallel, the DRC was also mindful that the parties exchanged correspondences after 6
January 2022. Nevertheless, conversely to the club’s position, at no moment in time the player
revoked his intention to terminate the employment contract (neither expressly nor tacitly). On
the contrary, the player: (i) ceased to render services to the club despite the latter’s several
requests to the contrary; (ii) ceased to reply to the club’s letters regarding sporting
appointments; and (iii) only insisted on the signature of an agreement to settle the financial
consequences of the – already announced – termination.
51. It follows, in the opinion of the Chamber, that the club could not establish to a comfortable
satisfaction degree that the employment contract was still valid and binding to the parties (cf;
art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules). As such, the DRC decided that the employment
contract was prematurely terminated by the player on 6 January 2022.
B. Did the termination take place with just cause in line with the Regulations?
52. Having established the above, the DRC moved to the analysis of the just cause and recalled
the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC according to which only a breach or misconduct
that is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when
there are objective criteria that do not reasonably permit the expectation that the employment
relationship between the parties can continue, a contract may be terminated prematurely
(ultima ratio measure).
53. With the above in mind, the Chamber observed that the player (in his claim) based the
termination of the employment contract on the allegations that the club: (i) excluded him
from its WhatsApp group and verbally informed that his services would no longer be needed;
and (ii) failed to pay him a significant part of his remuneration. On the other hand, the
members of the DRC were also mindful of the club’s allegations according to which, in
synthesis: (i) the player was the one intending to terminate the contractual relationship and
refused its invitation to join the new WhatsApp group for the subsequent season; and (ii) the
amount owed to the player was lower than two monthly salaries.
54. In view of this dissent between the parties, the DRC started its deliberations by considering
the topic (i) above. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that:
Page 11
REF FPSD-4989
a. on 12 December 2021, the player was excluded from the WhatsApp group called “FC
Riga” together with several other contact numbers;
b. on 20 December 2021, the player sent the club the first default notice referring
exclusively to the outstanding remuneration;
c. on 27 December 2021, the player for the first time put the club in default for inter alia
excluding him from the WhatsApp group, and failing to informing him about the future
appointments with the team;
d. on 2 and 5 January 2022, the player and/or his legal representative and the club’s
representatives exchanged messages via WhatsApp regarding both a potential
termination and the calendar of the team;
e. also on 5 January 2022 the player was warned for missing the training session, and in
parallel received an invitation to join the team’s WhatsApp group, to no avail; and
f. on 6 January 2022, the player terminated the employment contract based exclusively
on overdue payables.
55. Bearing in mind the abovementioned timeline, the DRC was not persuaded by the player’s
position according to which the club manifested its intention to terminate the employment
contract, let alone that it forced him to do so. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that
there was not on file any convincing evidence capable of supporting the player’s
argumentation that the club violated its duty of information or segregated him from the rest
of the team. On the contrary, the player did not dispute the fact that he was invited to join
the new WhatsApp group and failed to do so by his own choice.
56. In parallel, the members of the DRC were convinced that – even if the club’s behaviour was
considered to be a breach of the employment contract – it was promptly remedied after the
player’s warning notice and within a reasonable time limit insofar as it was not mentioned in
the termination notice. Consequently, the Chamber decided that it could not be considered
as a valid reason for the termination of the employment contract and stressed that the player’s
argumentation in this regard should be set aside.
57. The foregoing having been established, the DRC acknowledged that the core issue of the
case at stake pertained to the analysis of the overdue payables at the time of the termination
(i.e. 6 January 2022).
58. At this point, the Chamber referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 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 obligation(s).
Page 12
REF FPSD-4989
59. Likewise, the DRC recalled that its jurisprudence, as detailed by the Commentary on the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players – Edition 2021, pp. 123, establishes the
following:
“Article 14bis refers to unpaid and outstanding salaries. However, this certainly does not
imply that delayed payment of other forms of (frequent, non-conditional) remuneration
cannot constitute a just cause for a player to terminate their contract prematurely. A player
invoking other outstanding remuneration as just cause to terminate their contract may still
have a strong case. The pertinent circumstances will have to be assessed against the
general definition of what constitutes a just cause in accordance with the terms of article
14, along with the relevant general criteria set out in jurisprudence and described above.
Particular attention should be paid factors such as whether the outstanding amount is
significant (i.e. that it is neither negligible nor totally subordinated), the extent of the delay,
the general attitude of the parties in the specific case, and other relevant factors”.
60. With the above in mind, the members of the DRC once again turned to the documentation
brought forward by the parties, this time aiming to establishing all the amounts that were
outstanding at the time of the termination.
61. In doing so, the Chamber firstly took due consideration of the club’s argumentation as to the
car expenses allegedly paid on behalf of the player, amounting to EUR 400 per month. On
the other hand, the DRC was also observant of the player’s objection to this matter and
concurred with him because, in the Chamber’s view, the club submitted documentary
evidence that a car was rented on behalf of the player, however it could not prove that he
was aware (and in agreement) with the costs involved. Put differently, the DRC concluded
that the club did not advance any evidence that the player expressly authorized a deduction
to be made over his monthly entitlements, let alone that said deduction was contractually
based.
62. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the player’s salaries should have been paid
in full (i.e. EUR 14,000 per month), in accordance with clauses 3.1.1 and 4 of the employment
contract.
63. Secondly, the DRC highlighted that: (i) as the employment contract did only enter into force
on 16 June 2021, the player’s June 2021 salary should also be divided per two, amounting
to EUR 7,000; and (ii) the salary of December 2021 only fell due on 20 January 2022,
therefore should not be taken into consideration for the calculation of the outstanding
monies at the time of the termination.
64. Thirdly, the Chamber also deemed that – conversely to player’s allegations on this behalf –
an arrangement for the payment of salaries such as the one described in clause 3.1.1 is within
the parties’ contractual freedom and does not per se constitute a violation of rights in line
with the solid jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal.
Page 13
REF FPSD-4989
65. Taking all the above into consideration, the DRC then established that by 6 January 2022 the
player should have been paid the total amount of EUR 77,000, corresponding to half of the
salary of June 2021 and the entire salaries from July until November 2021.
66. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that it remained undisputed between the parties that the
following amounts were received by the player until the relevant date:
Date
14 July 2021
26 July 2021
18 August 2021
19 August 2021
29 September 2021
31 October 2021
20 December 2021
3 January 2022
Reference
Salary June 2021
Salary June 2021
Salary July 2021
Salary July 2021
Salary August 2021
Salary September 2021
Salary October 2021
Salary October 2021
TOTAL
Amount
EUR 6,600
EUR 850
EUR 760
EUR 13,600
EUR 13,600
EUR 13,600
EUR 7,600
EUR 6,000
EUR 62,610
67. Therefore, the DRC determined that at the time of the termination (i.e. 6 January 2022), the
player had received a total sum of EUR 62,610 out of the EUR 77,000 due by the club,
entailing that EUR 14,390 were outstanding. In addition, the DRC also pointed out that: (i)
at the time the default notice dated 20 December 2021 was sent by the player, the salary of
November 2021 was not yet overdue; and (ii) the player’s argumentation regarding the
outstanding amounts was contradictory, insofar as he referred to different quantum in his
default notice, statement of claim, and reply to the counterclaim of the club.
68. As such, the DRC concurred that the club’s debt – in any scenario – was lower from the
threshold of two salaries mentioned in art. 14bis of the Regulations. In addition, the members
of the Chamber were not persuaded that the club’s breach was “significant” to the degree
of constituting an ultima ratio measure and giving cause to the termination vis-à-vis the
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal.
69. In conclusion, the DRC unanimously decided that the termination of the employment contract
by the player was premature and without just cause. Consequently, it pointed out that the
player should be liable to the consequences that follow.
C. Which are the consequences that follow?
70. Notwithstanding the assessment as to the (lack of) just cause for the termination of the
employment contract, the Chamber recalled that the club is liable to pay to the Claimant the
amounts which were outstanding under the employment contract at the moment of the
termination.
71. On this note, the DRC acknowledged that the player should be entitled to the following
amounts for the work performed, totalling EUR 93,709.67:
Page 14
REF FPSD-4989
a. EUR 7,000 as the pro rata salary of June 2021;
b. EUR 84,000 as the salaries from July and December 2021 (i.e. EUR 14,000 each); and
c. EUR 2,709.67 as the pro rata salary of January 2022.
72. Apart from the payments performed by the club before the termination of the employment
contract, the Chamber observed that the club also filed proof of having delivered the
following amounts to the player:
Date
9 January 2022
10 January 2022
4 February 2022
Reference
EUR 7,700
EUR 6,000
EUR 14,000
Amount
Salary November 2021
Salary November 2021
Salary December 2021
73. The player, on the other hand, acknowledged receipt only of the salary of November 2021;
however, he did not specifically challenge the payment for December 2021 nor provided any
evidence capable of rebutting the club’s allegations in this regard (cf. art. 13, par. 5 of the
Procedural Rules) – also supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the DRC established
that said payment (i.e. December 2021) shall be considered as performed by the club.
74. Taking into consideration the above, the Chamber concurred with the club’s position
according to which a total payment of EUR 90,310 had been performed to date.
75. Consequently, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
DRC decided that the club should be liable to pay the player EUR 3,399.67 as outstanding
remuneration (i.e. EUR 93,709.67 minus EUR 90,310).
76. In addition, 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 at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the date of the termination (i.e. 6 January 2022)
until the date of effective payment.
77. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the player. Specifically, the
Chamber seek to establish 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.
Page 15
REF FPSD-4989
78. In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged that no such compensation clause was included
in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. As a consequence, it
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
and recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be
taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
79. 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 employment
contract until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR
151,290.32 (i.e. pro rata salary of January 2022 plus the salaries from February until
November 2022) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
80. 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 DRC 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 its 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 and/or the actual costs incurred by
the damaged club in order to replace the leaving player.
81. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the contract. In addition, the DRC outlined that the club did not file any
evidence regarding neither a potential non-amortised part of the transfer fee nor related to
replacement costs.
82. Consequently, the Chamber deemed that the compensation for the breach should be
calculated exclusively on the basis of the residual value of the employment contract (i.e. EUR
151’290.32). Nevertheless, while considering the particular factual framework of this case,
the DRC stressed that the behaviour of the parties – and, in particular of the club – could not
be ignored and should also be taken into consideration in order to define the amount of
compensation due to the club.
83. To this extend, the Chamber referred to the facts that: (i) the club repetitively delayed its
financial obligations and despite not being capable of giving cause to the termination,
incurred in several minor breaches; (ii) the player’s second salary for the month of November
2021 became overdue the day after his default notice and was only partially paid by the club
on time; (iii) the club imposed erroneous deductions over the player’s salary regarding non-
Page 16
REF FPSD-4989
authorized car expenses; and (iv) the player was not able to find a new employment and
mitigate his damages.
84. By recalling the above and, in parallel, referring to the principle of specificity of sport, the
members of the Chamber concurred that the total amount of compensation due by the player
to the club should be mitigated by approximately one third. As such, on account of all of the
above-mentioned considerations and the particularities of the case at hand, the Chamber
decided that the player must pay the amount of EUR 100,000 to the club, which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the
present matter.
85. 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 club interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the counterclaim (i.e. 21 February 2022) until the
date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the club must pay the full amount
due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the player, 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.
89. Furthermore, the DRC 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 and for the maximum duration of six months.
90. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the player does
not pay the amounts due to the club within 45 days as from the moment in which the club
communicates its relevant bank details, provided that the decision is final and binding, a
Page 17
REF FPSD-4989
restriction on playing in official matches, for the maximum duration of six months shall
become effective on the player in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
91. Each party shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the counterparty in the Bank Account Registration Form, a copy of which is
attached to the present decision.
92. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban and/or restriction on playing official matches
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
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 18
REF FPSD-4989
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Ivan Paurević, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Riga FC, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the amount of EUR 1,390 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 21 December 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is partially accepted.
5.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the
amount of EUR 100,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 21 February 2022 until the date of effective payment.
6.
Any further claims of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant are rejected.
7.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank accounts indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Forms.
8.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within
45 days of notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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.
Page 19
REF FPSD-4989
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 by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within
45 days of notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall be restricted on playing in official matches up
until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up to six
months on playing in official matches.
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 restrictions of six months on playing official matches.
10. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent and/or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 7
and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
11. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 20
REF FPSD-4989
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a
party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or
a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 21