Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14478
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Alberto Perea Correoso
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Alberto Perea Correoso, Spain
Represented by Juan Manuel López Ruiz
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Anorthosis Famagusta, Cyprus
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14478
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 9 January 2024, the Spanish player Alberto Perea Correoso (hereinafter, the Claimant or the
Player) and the Cypriot club Anorthosis Famagusta (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 9 January 2024 until 30
June 2025.
2.
According to Clause 1.2 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player (hereinafter, jointly
referred to as the Parties) the following fixed salary:
1.3.1. From 31/01/2024 until 31/05/2024, a monthly gross salary of € 6,316.18. a total annual of €
31,580.90 (5,000.00 net monthly, a total annual of € 25,000.00 net).
1.3.2. From 31/08/2024 until 31/05/2025, a monthly gross salary of € 6,316.18, a total annual of €
63,161.77 (5,000.00 net monthly, a total annual of € 50,000.00 net).
3.
On 10 January 2024, the Parties concluded the so-called “Supplementary Agreement” (hereinafter, the
Agreement), in accordance with which:
(…)
D. The parties wish to update the remuneration, bonuses and associated benefits that the Player will be
entitled to receive, under the employment agreement, as well as amend supplementary clauses.
4.
As per Clause 1 of the Agreement, the Parties agreed upon the following additional salary:
1. In addition to the monthly salaries agreed in the Employment Agreement, the Club will pay to the Player
the following amounts:
1.1. For the period starting from 31/01/2024 and ending 31/05/2024 the total additional amount of €
115.000 (one hundred and fifteen thousand euro) net and subject to the terms of the present
agreement, in 5 (five) equal monthly instalments of € 23.000 (twenty-three thousand euro) net.
1.2. For the period starting from 31/08/2024 and ending 31/05/2025 the total additional amount of €
225.000 (two hundred and twenty-five thousand euro) net and subject to the terms of the present
agreement, in 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments of € 22.500 (twenty-two thousand five hundred
euro) net.
2. Bonus Payment: The Club will pay the Player a bonus of € 1,000 (one thousand euro), for every goal
the Player scores or assist the Player gives that results to goal in official Championship games.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14478
5.
On 5 April 2024, the Player put the Club in default referring to art. 12bis and art. 14bis of the
Regulations, requesting the payment of the total sum of EUR 102,000, corresponding to the
following amounts and concepts:
- € 18,000 for January 2024, as Anorthosis Famagusta FC had previously made 2 (two) payments of €
5,000 net each.
- € 28,000 for February 2024.
- € 5,000 for the salary of February 2024.
- € 23,000 for February 2024 from the Supplementary Agreement.
- € 28,000 for March 2024.
- € 5,000 for the salary of March 2024.
- € 23,000 for March 2024 from the Supplementary Agreement.
- € 28,000 for April 2024.
- € 5,000 for the salary of April 2024.
- € 23,000 for April 2024 from the Supplementary Agreement.
6.
The Player granted a 15-day deadline to the Club to comply with its financial obligations.
7.
On 20 April 2024, the Club’s General Director, Mr Marinos Mitrou (hereinafter, Mr Mitrou) asked the
Player’s legal representative (hereinafter, the LR) whether the Player would wait until Monday. In
reply, the Player’s LR informed that the Player would only wait in case the Club proposed a concrete
offer.
8.
On 21 April 2024, Mr Mitrou shared with the Player’s LR two unsigned letters via WhatsApp. In the
first one, dated 20 April 2024, the Respondent apologised for the inconveniences and informed the
Player about the following:
A. We are happy to inform you that we have gathered the funds and suggest the following payment plan:
1. 50% (€ 37,000) on Wednesday 24/4/2024
2. 50% (37,000) within 1 week, i.e., on or before Wednesday 1/5/2024.
As agreed, there will be no salary deduction during the Player’s absence in January.
B. The Player will be paid his payables as agreed until May 2024.
C. The contract of Employment for the season 2024-25 will be terminated with mutual agreement.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14478
9.
As per the second letter, the Club informed the Player that “we are granting the Player Alberto Perea
Correoso leave of absence from the training sessions and games from tomorrow April 22 nd until Saturday
May 11th, 2024. The leave of absence was requested by the Player in order to travel to Spain for personal
reasons”.
10. Also on 21 April 2024, the Player informed that he did not accept the Club’s terms, and informed
that the outstanding amounts were “January: 18.000 €; February: 28.000 €; March: 28.000 €; April (so
far): 18.660 €. Total 92.660 €. We need to have a letter recognizing that amount in full and compromising
to pay on Monday at least January, feb and march”.
11. Later on 21 April 2024, the Club shared with the Player another letter where it informed the latter
of the following:
“We confirm the outstanding amount to be € 92.660 up to today (including April up to today) and we are
happy to inform you that we have gathered the funds of €74,000 and we will fully settle your due payables
as per our agreement. Although the deadline of the notice sent on 5/4/2024 expires today, since it is a
non-working day, under Swiss law the deadline is extended until Monday 22/4/2024. Consequently, the
club will fully settle your due payable via Bank Transfer on Monday, i.e., before the expiry of the deadline”.
12. In reply, the Player informed that “If no payment by 9 am tomorrow we terminate”.
13. On 22 April 2024, the following sequence of facts occurred:
• At 10:59, the Respondent paid EUR 74,000 to the Player.
• At 12:00, Mr Mitrou confirmed to the Player’s LR via WhatsApp that the payment was made. The
Player’s LR informed that “the payment has not been cleared and the player is tired to wait”.
• At 12:50, the Player terminated the Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
• The Club replied to the termination letter of the Player rejecting his just cause.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 25 April 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position
of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
15. The Player argued that since the month of January he had only received EUR 10,000 net in two
payments of EUR 5,000 each.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14478
16. According to the Player, as it can be seen from the Respondent’s letter dated 20 April 2024, its
intention was to subject the payment of the overdue amounts to the termination of the Contract by
mutual agreement, something that the Player did not want.
17. The Player further argued that the deadline granted to the Club expired on Saturday 20 April 2024,
which is a working day in Cyprus. In this respect, due to the lack of payment within the mentioned
deadline, the Player terminated the Contract on 22 April 2024.
18. The Player argued that “Unexpectedly, and without prior notice or agreement, [the Club] notified the
Player of a deposit they made, which was clearly made after the agreed deadline, in the amount of €
74,000 (seventy-four thousand euros and 00/100). This action was clearly taken with the intention of
preventing the Player from terminating the employment relationship with just cause, and instead, sought
to incite the Player to reach a mutual termination agreement, evidently with the purpose of avoiding the
corresponding payment”.
19. The Player referred to art. 12bis of the Regulations and to the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
and further sustained that art. 14bis is also applicable to the present case.
20. According to the Player, “it is clear that Articles 12 bis and 14 bis of the RSTP fully apply in the current
case, and since the Respondent did not comply with its financial obligations set out in the Agreement,
besides the Claimant fulfilled the formal requirements foreseen in the Article herein mentioned, we kindly
ask this H. Chamber to accept the claim in full and granting the right to the Claimant to obtain the total
amount of € 74,000 plus 5% interest”.
21. The Player requested the following relief:
i) To admit the claim lodged by ALBERTO PEREA CORREOSO in full;
ii) To decide that ALBERTO PEREA CORREOSO is entitled to receive the total amount of € 19,600.00
(nineteen thousand and six hundred euros 00/100) plus 5% interest p.a. for the outstanding
payments for 21 days of April 2024, for non-compliance of the payments towards the player set
out in the Players Agreements.
iii) To declare that ANORTHOSIS FAMAGUSTA FC breached the contract without just cause, and
therefore, is forced to pay the player the residual value of the contract plus an additional
compensation as stablished in article 17 of the FIFA’s RSTP. The residual value goes from April
22nd 2024 till May 31st 2025.
iv) To decide that ANORTHOSIS FAMAGUSTA FC did not comply with its financial obligations set out
in the Players Agreement and the rest of the agreements between the parties, violating Article 12
bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
In any case,
v) We request this honorable Chamber to condemn ANORTHOSIS FAMAGUSTA FC to pay all the legal
and procedural costs arising from the present procedure.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14478
b. Position and counterclaim of the Respondent
22. In its reply, the Club initially acknowledged that when the Player put it in default on 5 April 2024, the
outstanding remuneration amounted to EUR 74,000, and not EUR 102,000 as argued by the Player,
corresponding to the following amounts and concepts:
a. EUR 18,000 as part of the January 2024 salary.
b. EUR 28,000 as the February salary.
c. EUR 28,000 as the March salary.
23. The Respondent sustained that the April 2024 salary was not due at the time of the default notice,
as it was payable on 30 April 2024.
24. The Club further argued that the deadline of 15 days granted by the Player expired on Saturday 20
April 2024. In this respect, Saturdays are non-working days in Cyprus.
25. According to the Club, FIFA regulations do not have any provision on when deadlines of arts. 12bis
and/or 14bis expire when the last day is a non-working day, and consequently Swiss law applies
subsidiarily. In this respect, “according to art. 78(1) of the Swiss law, when a deadline expires on a non
working day, it is automatically extended until midnight of the first working day. This means that the
deadline which was granted to our club by the Player would expire at midnight on Monday, 22/04/2024,
i.e., first working day after 20/04/2024”.
26. The Club sustained that not only did the Player terminate the Contract before the expiry of the
deadline, but also after the Club had fully settled his due payables. In this respect, the Club argued
that the Player’s LR was aware of the payment when the Player terminated the Contract.
27. According to the Respondent, the Player agreed that he would not terminate the Contract provided
that the payment was received on Monday 22 April 2024. Even though the Player’s LR informed that
the payment had to be made by 9:00, he then delated the message. In any event, he then replied
affirmatively when the Club informed that payment would be made on said day, irrespective of the
time. In this respect, there was no agreement that the payment had to me made by 9:00 as alleged
by the Player.
28. The Club argued that “Consequently, the Player had waived from 21/02/2024, any rights he might have
to terminate the contracts on 22/04/2024, if the club would fully settle his due payables on 22/04/2024.
For this additional reason, the termination must be deemed as made without just cause”.
29. The Club alleged being entitled to EUR 317,477.98 as compensation for breach of contract without
just cause, corresponding to the residual value of the Contract as follows:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14478
a. EUR 6,316.18, representing the full amounts which the club would have paid to and for the Player
for the remaining of season 2023-2024, under the employment contract.
b. EUR 63,161.80, representing the full amounts which the club would have paid to and for the Player
for season 2024-2025, under the employment contract.
c. EUR 23,000, representing the full amounts which the club would have paid to the Player for the
remaining of season 2023-24, under the supplementary agreement.
d. EUR 225,000, representing the full amounts which the club would have paid to the Player for
season 2024-25, under the supplementary agreement.
30. The Respondent argued that it only proposed the Player to mutually terminate the Contract based
on its bad financial status, not because it was no longer interested in its services.
31. The Respondent requested the following relief:
1. The club is requesting the FIFA DRC to order the Player and his new club(s) to pay a
compensation of EUR 317,477.98 plus legal interest from the termination date until full
settlement.
2. The club is also calling FIFA to impose sporting sanctions on the player according to art 17(3)
FIFA RSTP.
c.
Claimant’s reply to the counterclaim
32. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player insisted that the Club failed to comply with the deadline
granted in his letter of 5 April 2024, which expired on 21 April 2024.
33. According to the Player, given that the Regulations do not make any distinction, “the days should be
counted in a natural way”. In this respect, there is no lacuna that would imply the subsidiary
application of Swiss law, as exposed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the award CAS
2020/A/7174.
34. The Player argued having complied with the formal requirements of art. 14bis of the Regulations,
and that he never accepted the offer received from the Club. In this respect, the Player further
alleged having granted more than 15 days when Mr López gave the Club until Monday 22 April 2024
at 9:00 to comply with the payment of EUR 92,600, which was expressly acknowledged by the Club
in its letter dated 21 April 2024.
35. According to the Player, “Despite the aforementioned communications and efforts, once again
Anorthosis Famagusta failed to comply with the deadline extension granted by the Player in good faith,
since as evidenced in the file of the present case, the transfer of the club Anorthosis Famagusta was made
at a different time than the one agreed by the parties and without complying with the obligation of
payment of €92,660 which, as mentioned above, is acknowledged by the former, since only the amount
of €74,140 was transferred”.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14478
36. Based on the foregoing, the Player considered that the existence of more than three overdue
monthly salaries constitutes a violation of the principle of trust, which constitutes by itself a just
cause for termination and does not even need a default notice.
37. According to the Player, “by transferring only the amount of €74,140, does not satisfy the requirement
to comply in full with the amount owed, as required in the notice sent to the club and which was expressly
acknowledge”.
38. The Player, consequently, insisted that he had just cause to terminate the Contract under art. 14bis
of the Regulations, and rejected the Club’s allegations and its entitlement to any compensation or
sporting sanctions.
39. The Player requested the following relief:
I. To admit the response of the claim lodged by Alberto Perea Correoso in full.
II. To decide that Alberto Perea Correoso is entitled to receive the total amount requested in the
claim submitted on April 22nd, 2024.
III. To declare that Anorthosis Famagusta to pay in full the amount owed to the Player.
IV. To dismiss in its entirety the counterclaim submitted by Anorthosis Famagusta as well as all the
relief and penalties requested by Anorthosis Famagusta on the basis of what is set out in the
present Counterclaim Response.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. 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 25 April 2024 and submitted for decision on 22 August 2024. Taking into
account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the
Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), the DRC is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Spanish player and a Cypriot club.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14478
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 (June 2024 edition) and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 25 April 2024, the February 2024 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter, the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Admissibility of the counterclaim
43. Before moving to the substance of the matter, the Chamber observed that the Player requested the
inadmissibility of the counterclaim lodged by the Club on 3 June 2024.
44. In this respect, the Chamber noted that on 3 May 2024, the FIFA general secretariat notified the
claim to the Respondent, granting a deadline until 23 May 2024 to provide its position, which was
further extended, upon request of the Respondent, until 1 June 2024 (i.e., Saturday).
45. The Chamber referred to art. 11 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which “If the last
day of a time limit coincides with an official public holiday or a non-working day in the place of domicile
of the party required to comply, the time limit will expire at the end of the next working day”, and
consequently decided to admit the Respondent’s reply and counterclaim.
c.
Burden of proof
46. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
47. 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 abovementioned 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
48. The foregoing having been established the DRC moved to the substance of the matter, and took
note of the fact that the Parties strongly disputed the justice of the early termination of the Contract
by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the
Respondent as per the Contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14478
49. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the evidence
presented by the Parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the
Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had in fact
been fulfilled.
50. The Chamber then 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).
51. With the foregoing in mind, the members of the Chamber noted that, according to the Player, at the
time of termination the Club was in default for part of the January 2024 monthly salary, and the
February, March and April 2024 salaries. In this respect, the Player argued having just cause when
he terminated the Contract after the deadline of fifteen days granted to the Club expired without
having received the outstanding remuneration.
52. The Chamber also observed that, on its part, the Club argued that it indeed paid the outstanding
amounts on 22 April 2022, and that this was the date where the deadline expired, given that the
deadline granted by the Player fell on Saturday 20 April 2024, which allegedly is a non-working day
in Cyprus and to which the Player allegedly agreed. On account of the foregoing, the Club concluded
that the Player terminated the Contract without just cause after it had settled the due payables, and
claimed being entitled to compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 317,477.98,
corresponding to the residual value of the Contract.
53. As a starting point, the majority of the Chamber wished to emphasise that art. 14bis of the
Regulations provides the minimum deadline which is to be granted to the debtor club, i.e., fifteen
days. In the majority of the Chamber’s view, the Regulations do not explicitly mention whether nonworking days should be counted or not and, consequently, it cannot be held that, having stipulated
that fifteen days is the deadline which must be granted to the Club, such deadline must necessarily
end on a working day. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that, in casu, the deadline
granted by the Player fell on 20 April 2024.
54. The above having been established, and for the sake of clarity, the DRC wished to recall the following
sequence of events:
• On 5 April 2024, the Player put the Club in default requesting the total sum of EUR 102,000,
corresponding to the monthly instalments of January 2024 (partially after the Club had
already paid EUR 10,000), February 2024, March 2024 and April 2024. The Player granted the
Club a deadline of fifteen days to comply with its financial obligations, i.e., until 20 April 2024.
• On 20 April 2024, the Club asked the Player’s LR whether the Player would accept waiting
until Monday, to which the latter opposed. However, he informed the Club that if an offer
was presented to the Player, he would try to convince him to wait.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14478
• On 21 April 2024, the Club shared with the Player’s legal representative two letters.
According to the first one, the Club informed that “we have gathered the funds”, and proposed
to pay to the Player the outstanding remuneration in two instalments of EUR 37,000 each by
the end of April and by the beginning of May. The Club also proposed the mutual termination
of the Contract. As per the second letter, the Club granted the Player leave of absence until
11 May 2024 as per his alleged request.
• The Player’s LR rejected the Club’s proposal, informing that the amount due was EUR 92,660,
and requesting a signed letter from the Club recognising, at least, the Player’s entitlement
to the monthly instalments of January, February, March and April 2024.
• Also on 21 April 2024, the Club shared another letter with the Player’s LR, acknowledging
that the outstanding remuneration was EUR 92,660 (including April until that date), and that
they would settle the due amounts on 22 April 2024 given that the deadline granted by the
Player fell on a non-working day.
• The Player’s LR replied that if payment was not made by 9 am on 22 April 2024, the Player
would terminate the Contract.
• On 22 April 2024, at 10:59, the Club paid EUR 74,000 to the Player, and at 12:00 it informed
the Player’s LR accordingly.
• Also on 22 April 2024, at 12:50, the Player terminated the Contract.
55. On account of the foregoing events, and also recalling the submissions and evidence provided by
the Parties, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and, by majority,
considered that the Parties were in agreement as to the outstanding remuneration due to the
Player, amounting to EUR 92,660. The foregoing was supported by the Club’s letter dated 21 April
2024, where it acknowledged that this was the amount due to the Player, and that they would “fully
settle the due payable” on 22 April 2024.
56. A contrario sensu, the majority of the Chamber was not convinced as to the Player’s alleged
agreement to postpone the payment of the claimed amounts until 22 April 2024. In this respect, the
Chamber, by majority, considered that on 21 April 2024 the Player only gave a last chance to the
Club to fulfil with its financial obligations when he was already entitled to terminate the Contract
under art. 14bis of the Regulations.
57. In the majority of the Chamber’s view, the Club had enough time since the reception of the default
notice to proceed with the payment of the outstanding salaries when requested to do so.
Nevertheless, it was not until 20 April 2024 i.e., on the last day of the deadline, that the Club tried to
postpone the payment, to which the Player opposed, and on 21 April 2024 that the Club
acknowledged the amounts due and suggested to split the payment in two instalments in April and
May 2024, even though it informed the Player that they had had gathered the funds, to which, again,
the Player opposed.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14478
58. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Chamber, by majority, concluded that the fact that the
Club did not comply in full with the amounts due, entitled the Player to terminate the Contract based
on art. 14bis of the Regulations, which led to the rejection of the counterclaim lodged by the Club
against the Player.
ii. Consequences
59. 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 Respondent.
60. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled with
the specific requests for relief of the Claimant, is equivalent to the April 2024 salary under the
Contract, amounting to EUR 28,000.
61. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 28,000 net.
62. 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 from 23 April 2024 until the date of effective payment.
63. 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, 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.
64. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether
the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the Parties had
beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the
event of breach of contract.
65. 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.
66. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Respondent to the Claimant 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-
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14478
exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
67. 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 term.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 303,000 (i.e., the residual value of
the Contract and the Agreement) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
68. In continuation, the Chamber verified 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 Chamber 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.
69. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the contract.
70. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player
did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract, as a general rule,
the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely
terminated.
71. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Player compensation for breach of contract in
the amount of USD EUR 303,000, as the residual value of the employment relationship.
72. The Chamber also took into consideration the fact that the Claimant request no interest with regard
to the compensation, so as not to contravene the principle ne ultra petita, the DRC did not award
any interest on the above amount.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
73. 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.
74. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14478
75. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration
periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4,
and 7 of the Regulations.
76. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present
decision.
77. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete
serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of the Regulations.
e. Costs
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of
the Parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14478
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of Alberto Perea Correoso is accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Anorthosis Famagusta, must pay to Alberto Perea Correoso the
following amount(s):
EUR 28,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 23 April 2024 until
the date of effective payment.
EUR 303,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
3.
The counterclaim of Anorthosis Famagusta is rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment (including
all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following
consequences shall apply:
1. Anorthosis Famagusta 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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of Alberto Perea Correoso in
accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-14478
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 17