Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01706
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 March 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Aleksandar Pešić
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay and Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
Aleksandar Pešić, Serbia
Represented by Mr. Davor Radić
RESPONDENT:
Al Ittihad, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Mr. Jan Kleiner
Page 2 of 18
REF 20-01706
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 11 July 2018, the Serbian player, Mr. Aleksandar Pešić (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant), and the Saudi Arabian club, Al Ittihad (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent),
signed an employment contract valid as from 15 July 2018 until 30 June 2021 (hereinafter:
the contract).
2.
In accordance with item 4 of the contract, the club undertook to pay the player, inter alia,
the total amount of USD 4,800,000 net, “in the form of 36 equal monthly instalments of
USD 133,333.33 (one hundred thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three US
Dollars and 33 cents) by no later than the last day of each month that the salary refers to”.
3.
Additionally, item 6 of the contract established the following:
“[The club] may not delay payment of [the player’s] salaries or terminate the contract due
to player's injury during matches or training. In terms of timely payment of all the cash
benefits specified in Item 4 of this Contract, the Parties agree on the following:
[...] b) In case [the club] afterwards fails to pay to [the player] monetary amounts amounting
to three (3) monthly instalments referred to in Item 4, Paragraph 1 - point b) of this Contract
(USD 400,000.00 net), [the player] is obliged to send [the club] notice in writing warning
he will unilaterally terminate the contract for such non-payment and give it a further term
of ten (10) working days to pay in full such monetary amount. If within the next ten (10)
working days, [the club] fails to pay to [the player] this monetary amount, the [the player]
shall have the right to unilaterally terminate this Contract and to request payment of an
amount equaling twelve monthly instalments {Item 4, Paragraph 1 - point b) as liquidated
damages. No further damage shall be due in such a scenario and the parties further
acknowledge that article 17.1 (ii) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players will not apply in the sense that no additional compensation will be due to Second
Party and no deduction from the agreed amount will apply.
The Parties furthermore agree that [the club] has the right to unilaterally terminate this
contract at any time with the payment of an amount equaling twelve monthly salaries. This
termination shall be considered justified and no sporting sanction shall apply on [the club]
if payment is made of this amount”.
4.
Finally, as per item 10, par. 5 of the contract:
“The Player may decide to prematurely terminate this contract without just cause in order
to transfer to another football club by paying [the club] the amount of USD 8.000.000
(eight million US Dollars). In this scenario no sports sanction may imposed on the Player
since this clause must be interpreted as so called ‘buy-out clause’”.
Page 3 of 18
REF 20-01706
5.
On 31 January 2019, the club and the Korean club FC Seoul agreed on the loan of the
player from the former to the latter as from 1 February 2019 to 30 June 2020 (hereinafter:
the loan agreement). In parallel, the player and the club signed an “Agreement between
the player Aleksandar Pešić and Ittihad FC regarding the loan to FC Seoul in the winter
registration period of 2019 until 30 June 2020” (hereafter: the supplementary agreement)
and formalized the following:
“2. during the loan period, [the club] will timely pay 50% of the players monthly wage, as
agreed in [the contract] signed between [the player] and [the club] on 11 July 2018. [The
player] hereby confirms and agrees that [the club] does not have to pay any other amount
as provided for in [the contract] signed between the Parties on 11 July 2018 for the whole
duration of the loan. In addition, both Parties agree that the mechanism established in Item
6 of [the contract] between [the player] and [the club] shall equally remain in force during
the loan period of [the player] to FC Seoul.
3. to pay [the player] two monthly wages which are due (for the months of December 2018
and January 2019), no later than February 5, 2019. [The player] hereby confirms and agrees
that no other amount is outstanding in what concerns the period of July 2018 – January
2019 [...]”.
6.
On 14 February 2020, the player sent the club an e-mail informing that his salaries from
August 2019 to January 2020 remained unpaid. The player also requested the club to send
him “in next 7 (seven) days, by this email your proof of that all payments during the loan
period of the Player (i.e. payments after 31 January 2019 until today)” in order to confirm
the quantum of the outstanding remuneration.
7.
On 25 February 2020, the club provided its response to the player and stated that “the due
salary for your client is: September-October-November-December 2019 + January 2020”.
8.
Also on 25 February 2020, the player sent the club a new e-mail pointing out that he had
received the following payments:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
9.
On 11 February 2019, EUR 105,142.15 (salary of January 2019);
On 7 March 2019, EUR 15,352.17 (salary of February 2019);
On 1 April 2019, EUR 102,425.71 (salaries of February and March 2019);
On 15 May 2019, EUR 58,158.42 (salary of April 2019);
On 26 September 2019, USD 66,652 (salary of May 2019);
On 31 December 2019, USD 66,652 (salary of June 2019); and
On 5 February 2020, USD 66,652 (salary of July 2019).
In the same letter, the player wrote as follows: “If you make some another payment,
because you said to us that as your calculation debt is 5 salaries please send as proof of that
another payment (SWIFT bank account)”.
Page 4 of 18
REF 20-01706
10.
On 12 March 2020, the player put the club in default providing it with a 10 days’ deadline
in order to proceed the payment of USD 466,600, corresponding to his salaries from August
2019 to February 2020.
11.
On 23 March 2020, the player sent the club a reminder via e-mail and requested an
acknowledgment of receipt of his previous communication.
12.
On 20 April 2020, the club replied to the player’s notice and referred to COVID-19’s effects
on the club (e.g. suspension of sport activities, precautionary measures, financial impact
and force majeure).
13.
On 29 April 2020, the club sent the player another letter by means of which it reiterated
the impacts of the COVID pandemic and notified him the policy of salaries’ reduction that
would be adopted by the club in the following months, in verbis:
“The policy that will have to be applied during COVID-19 pandemic is the following:
- For all employees, a basic amount of SAR 20'000.-/per month remains guaranteed.
- The part of the contractually agreed monthly salary exceeding SAR 20,000. - will be
reduced by 50%.
- Period of the policy: 15 March 2020 until the resumption of the sportive activities, club
training and the disappearance of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Since your client belongs to the group of high-income earners of the professional players
at [the club], he is subject to the above-mentioned policy”.
14.
On 2 May 2020, the player wrote to the club and established the following: “[The player]
will not accept propositions of [the club] in regard to the payment of his income in the
period from 15 March 2020 until the continuation of sports activities, club’s trainings and
the disappearance of COVID-19”. As a reason for his denial, the player stressed, inter alia,
that: (i) he was currently playing for Seoul FC; (ii) he had already agreed on a reduction of
50% of his salary in accordance with the supplementary agreement; and (iii) the club was
not complying with its financial obligations towards the player.
15.
In the same opportunity, the player granted the club another 10 days’ deadline in order to
proceed the payment of his outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 500,000.
16.
On 7 June 2020, the club replied to the player and once again referred to the COVID
pandemic as the cause of its default. Moreover, the club mentioned the following: “I can
confirm that by no later than 1 July 2020, any overdue payments existing today will be
settled to your client”.
17.
On 12 June 2020, the club wrote to the player and stated, inter alia, as follows:
Page 5 of 18
REF 20-01706
”[...] We wish to assure you that [the club] continues to make its best efforts to pay all
outstanding salaries. It has been informed that a substantial payment can be made in the
coming days. Moreover, the funds that are further required will be made available at the
latest by the end of the current month, so that by that time, we can settle all pending
financial obligations.
We would also like to maintain our on-going discussions with you as to how the current
COVID-19 crisis can be addressed within the current employment relationship between our
clients, in a transparent manner and based on good faith”.
18.
On the same date, 12 June 2020, the player answered the club’s correspondence and said
that he was happy to receive such a guarantee of payment.
19.
On 4 September 2020, the player sent the club another default notice informing that, until
that date, he had only received the total amount of USD 187,709, so that the club still owed
him USD 812,288. As a consequence, the player put the club in default providing it with a
15 days’ deadline in order to pay his outstanding remuneration, under penalty of
terminating the contract with just cause.
20.
On 21 September 2020, the Player notified the club the termination of the contract with
just cause and, apart from his outstanding remuneration, also claimed an additional
payment of 12 salaries as compensation for breach of contract (cf. item 6b of the contract).
21.
On 4 October 2020, the player signed a new employment contract with the Israeli club,
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC. In accordance with the information available in the Transfer Match
System (TMS), such employment relationship is valid as from 4 October 2020 until 31 May
2021 and the player is entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 43,750 net during season 2020
and of EUR 33,333 during season 2021/2022.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
22.
On 23 November 2020, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA requesting, inter alia,
the following amounts:
a. USD 905,689.99 as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
USD 66,667 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2019;
USD 66,667 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2019;
USD 66,667 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from1 November 2019;
USD 66,667 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from1 December 2019;
USD 66,667 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from1 January 2020;
USD 66,667 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from1 February 2020;
USD 12,354 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2020;
USD 33,333.50 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2020;
Page 6 of 18
REF 20-01706
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
USD 33,333.50 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020;
USD 67,667 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2020;
USD 133,333.33 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2020;
USD 133,333.33 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2020; and
USD 93,333.33 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 September 2020.
b. USD 1,600,000 net, plus 5% interest as from 22 September 2020, as compensation
for breach of contract (cf. item 6 of the contact).
23.
In his claim, the player recalled, inter alia, the principle of pacta sunt servanda, CAS’
jurisprudence, Swiss law and the contents of article 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) in order to justify that he prematurely terminated the
contract with just cause.
24.
In support of the above, the player pointed out that, by letter dated 4 September 2020, he
put the club in default and granted it with a 15 days’ deadline in order to cure its breach,
to no avail.
25.
Consequently, the player referred to art.17, par. 1 of the FIFA RSTP, as well as to item 6 of
the contract, which he defined as “clear, reciprocal, balanced and gives no room for
ambiguity”. As a consequence, the player stressed that he is entitled to a compensation for
breach of contract equal to 12 monthly salaries (i.e. USD 1,600,000).
26.
At the end, the player expressly requested that all amounts charged should be granted to
the player net, as stipulated in the contract.
27.
In spite of having been invited to do so, the club failed to submit any reply to the player’s
claim within the granted deadline, i.e. 20 December 2020.
28.
On 4 January 2021, the FIFA general secretariat closed the investigation of the matter and
informed that no further submissions from the parties would be admitted to the file (cf. art.
9 par. 4 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber).
29.
On 13 January 2021, the club filed an untimely answer with enclosures.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
30.
Competence and applicable legal framework
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 23 November 2020 and
submitted for decision on 25 March 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of
Page 7 of 18
REF 20-01706
the January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
31.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Serbian player and
a Saudi Arabian club.
32.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 November 2020, the October 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
33.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the DRC stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
34.
In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
35.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC emphasised that in the following considerations
it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered
pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
36.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the player lodged a claim against the club seeking payment
Page 8 of 18
REF 20-01706
of outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, claiming that he
had just cause to terminate the contract.
37.
Subsequently, the DRC observed that the club, for its part, failed to present its response to
the claim of the player, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the DRC
considered that the club renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations
of the player.
38.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC was firm to determine that the late response filed
by the club is inadmissible in line with art. 9 par. 3 and 4 of the Procedural Rules, insofar as
such submission was filed after the deadline granted and after the closure of the
investigation phase of the dispute.
39.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC concurred
that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon
the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and
documents presented by the player.
40.
In this respect, the DRC turned to the evidence on file and noted that it was clear that upon
the termination of the contract, not only the club had been warned and granted a deadline
of 15 days to cure its breach, but also the payments defaulted amounted to a significant
part of the player’s remuneration for the season (i.e. his monthly salaries from August 2019
until September 2020).
41.
The Chamber then recalled the solid DRC jurisprudence according to which such persistent
and substantial non-compliance of the contractual obligations by the club can justify the
unilateral termination of the agreement as well as it can hold the club liable for breach of
contract.
42.
Based on the foregoing and having in mind the contents of art. 14bis of the Regulations,
the DRC unanimously decided that the player had just cause to terminate the contract.
ii. Consequences
43.
Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.
44.
In this regard, the DRC sought to establish which payments had remained outstanding at
the time of the termination. In addition, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive compensation from
the club for the termination of the contract with just cause.
45.
With due consideration of the above, the Chamber took note of the fact that the player
was firstly entitled to monthly remuneration in the amount of USD 133,333.33 and, as per
Page 9 of 18
REF 20-01706
the supplementary agreement, he agreed upon the reduction of 50% of his monthly
entitlements (i.e. USD 66,667) during the term of the loan agreement.
46.
The Chamber equally took due note of the club’s argumentation in its correspondences to
the player regarding the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
47.
Accordingly, the Chamber firstly wished to highlight that FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the
COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate guidance and recommendations
to member associations and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the consequences of
disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response is harmonised in the
common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an additional document,
referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on the most relevant
questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and
identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
48.
The DRC also wished to refer to the fact that said guidelines – as per the explicit wording
of FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines – are only
applicable to “unilateral variations to existing employment agreements”. Therefore, except
where a termination of a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as a result
of COVID-19 (in which case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the
guidelines), said guidelines do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing
employment agreements. The Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes
that are presented before the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of
a contract, the FIFA Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber
shall apply.
49.
Additionally, analysing the concept of a situation of force majeure, the members of the
Chamber noted that, based on the contents of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA
COVID-19 FAQ, FIFA did not declare that the COVID-19 outbreak was a force majeure
situation in any specific country or territory, or that any specific employment or transfer
agreement was impacted by the concept of force majeure.
50.
In other words, in any given dispute, it is for a party invoking force majeure to establish the
existence of said event under the applicable law/rules as well as the consequences that
derive in connection thereto. The analysis of whether a situation of force majeure existed
has to be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the relevant
circumstances.
51.
Following these general observations, the members of the Chamber went on to analyse
whether in the matter at hand, any of the parties to the contract had made a unilateral
variation to their existing agreement prior to the unilateral termination of the contract by
the Claimant.
52.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber agreed that the decision of the club to
unilaterally reduce 50% of the player’s salary payments as from 15 March 2020 has to be
Page 10 of 18
REF 20-01706
considered as a unilateral variation to the employment relationship between the parties. It
is clear to the members that the club did not terminate the contract, but only altered the
salary payment. As a result, the members of the Chamber concluded that the FIFA COVID19 Guidelines and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ are applicable to the matter at hand when
having to assess the legitimacy of the pertinent unilateral alteration.
53.
In the case at hand, in application of the FIFA COVID 19 Guidelines, the DRC noted that
unilateral decisions to vary agreements will only be recognised where they are made in
accordance with national law or are permissible within collective bargained agreements
(CBA) structures or another collective agreement mechanism.
54.
What is more, the Chamber stressed the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
pursuant to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the
burden of proof. As an example, a party should provide independent legal advice from a
qualified legal practitioner in the relevant jurisdiction which confirms that the unilateral
variation was a valid exercise of the national law referred to in the agreement, CBA, or
other collective agreement mechanism.
55.
Turning to the evidence on file as well as the submissions of the parties, and moreover
taking into account that the club failed to timely present its reply to the claim, the Chamber
confirmed that there is no argument nor evidence on file capable of demonstrating that the
unilateral variation of the player’s salary was made on the basis of the national law, or any
collective agreement. Furthermore, the DRC stressed that equally nothing on file is able to
demonstrate that the national law does not address the issue of force majeure.
56.
Based on the foregoing considerations, the Chamber unanimously concluded that the
unilateral variation of the contract cannot be considered licit, entailing that the unilateral
variation of the contract due to COVID outbreak shall be disregarded and, hence, that the
club should have paid the player’s agreed remuneration as follows:
a. USD 133,333.33 net for the period between 15 July 2018 and 31 January 2019;
b. USD 66,667 net for the period between 1 February 2019 and 30 June 2020
(corresponding to the term of the loan agreement); and
c. USD 133,333.33 net for the period between 1 July 2020 and the termination (i.e.
September 2020).
57.
On account of the abovementioned considerations, the Chamber noted that the
outstanding remuneration requested by the player in his claim is both contractually agreed
and undisputed by the club. As a consequence and in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber concurred that the club is liable to pay to
the player the following amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the
moment of the termination:
Page 11 of 18
REF 20-01706
-
USD 66,667 corresponding to the salary of August 2019;
USD 66,667 corresponding to the salary of September 2019;
USD 66,667 corresponding to the salary of October 2019;
USD 66,667 corresponding to the salary of November 2019;
USD 66,667 corresponding to the salary of December 2019;
USD 66,667 corresponding to the salary of January 2020;
USD 12,354 corresponding to part of the salary of March 2020;
USD 33,333.50 corresponding to part of the salary of April 2020;
USD 33,333.50 corresponding to part of the salary of May 2020;
USD 66,667 corresponding to the salary of June 2020;
USD 133,333.33 corresponding to the salary of July 2020;
USD 133,333.33 corresponding to the salary of August 2020; and
USD 133,333.33 corresponding to the salary of September 2020.
58.
Additionally, the DRC, in line with its constant jurisprudence as well as the requests of relief
of the player, decided to grant interest at the rate of 5% per annum on said amounts as
from their due dates (i.e. the following day upon which they fell due) until the date of
effective payment.
59.
Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention 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, 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, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected
period.
60.
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 observed
that the player requested the amount of USD 1,600,000 net as compensation for breach of
contract in accordance with item 6 of the contract.
61.
The DRC then proceeded to examine the wording of such clause, which reads, inter alia, as
follows: “in case [the club afterwards fails to pay to [the player] monetary amounts
amounting to three (3) monthly instalments referred to in Item 4, Paragraph 1 - point b) of
this Contract (USD 400,000.00 net), [the player] is obliged to send [the club] notice in
writing warning he will unilaterally terminate the contract for such non-payment and give
it a further term of ten (10) working days to pay in full such monetary amount. If within the
next ten (10) working days, [the club] fails to pay to [the player] this monetary amount, the
[the player] shall have the right to unilaterally terminate this Contract and to request
Page 12 of 18
REF 20-01706
payment of an amount equalling twelve monthly instalments {Item 4, Paragraph 1 - point
b) as liquidated damages […]”
62.
The question that remained was to assess if such clause was reasonable and proportionate
in light of the particularities of the case and the extensive jurisprudence of the DRC in this
respect. Accordingly, the Chamber was of the opinion that such clause it is not reciprocal
as it does not grant the same rights both to the player and the club. Therefore, the members
of the Chamber decided that said clause cannot be taken into consideration in the
determination of the amount of compensation insofar as it was not deemed reasonable.
63.
As a consequence, the DRC 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 nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable.
64.
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 contract
until its expiry date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD
1,200,000 (i.e. salaries from October 2020 until June 2021) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
65.
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.
66.
Indeed, the player found employment with Maccabi Tel Aviv FC. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to the monthly salary of EUR 43,750
net during 2020 and of EUR 33,333 during 2021. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that
the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of USD 383,333.
67.
Subsequently, the Chamber 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 additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to
overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore
decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
68.
In this respect, the DRC highlighted that theoretically the player would be entitled to USD
400,000 as additional compensation (i.e. three times his monthly remuneration under the
contract). However, the Chamber recalled that as per the clear wording of article 17 of the
Page 13 of 18
REF 20-01706
Regulations, the amount of compensation (including any additional compensation) cannot
exceed the residual value of the contract.
69.
As a consequence, it was decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
383,333 to the player.
70.
Therefore, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of
the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD
1,200,000 to the player (i.e. USD 1,200,000 minus USD 383,333 plus USD 383,333) for
breach of contract in the present matter.
71.
With regard to the claimed interest, the Chamber, applying the constant practice of the
DRC decided to award the player 5% interest p.a. on the said amount as from the date of
the claim (i.e. 23 November 2020).
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
72.
Finally, taking into account the Regulations, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art.
24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding
body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party
to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
73.
In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
74.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent,
provided that the decision is final and binding, a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
75.
The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3
of the Regulations.
76.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
d.
Costs
Page 14 of 18
REF 20-01706
77.
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
78.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
Page 15 of 18
REF 20-01706
IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mr. Aleksandar Pešić, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Ittihad, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- USD 66,667 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2019
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 66,667 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2019 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 66,667 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2019 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 66,667 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2019 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 66,667 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 66,667 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 12,354 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2020 until the
date of effective payment;
- USD 33,333.50 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 33,333.50 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020 until
the date of effective payment;
- USD 66,667 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2020 until the
date of effective payment;
- USD 133,333.33 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 133,333.33 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2020
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 133,333.33 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 October 2020
until the date of effective payment; and
Page 16 of 18
REF 20-01706
- USD 1,200,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23
November 2020 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17 of 18
REF 20-01706
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 18 of 18