Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-14310
Decision of the
Players’ Status Chamber
passed on 6 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the coach Kaloyan
Petkov
BY:
Christina LABRIE (USA)
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Kaloyan Petkov, Bulgaria
Represented by Georgi Gradev
RESPONDENT/COUNTERCLAIMANT:
FK Gintra, Lithuania
Represented by Antanas Paulauskas
Page 2
REF FPSD-14310
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 February 2022, the Bulgarian coach Kaloyan Petkov (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counterrespondent or the Coach) and the Lithuanian club FK Gintra (hereinafter: the
Respondent/Counterclaimant or the Club) signed an employment agreement (hereinafter:
the Employment Agreement) valid from the date of signature until 15 November 2024.
2.
The Employment Agreement also included a 1-month extension option, until 15 December
2024, in the event the Club qualified for the Champions League group stage.
3.
Pursuant to clause 3.1 of the Employment Agreement, the Coach was entitled to receive a
monthly net remuneration of EUR 2,500. Furthermore, according to Clause 3.3, the Club
agreed to pay all taxes and mandatory payments specified by Lithuanian legislation.
4.
Clause 4, entitled “Work Schedule and Holydays[sic],” stated in relevant part as follows:
“4.1. The work schedule of the Coach is unregulated, non-hourly scheduled and its all depend of
the Clubs activities. The Club activities are scheduled by the Coach and proven by the Sports
director or the President.
4.2. After the first season finish the coach can use 1 month paid holiday in the off-season with
Club authorities’ permission.
4.3. In special or personal cases, the Coach can use one-month unpaid holiday by written
agreement with the Club authorities.
4.4. However, because of the Coach unregular schedule, team days-offs in the training schedule
can be accumulate and use by the Coach with Club’s authority’s permission in the suitable nonactivities time.”
5.
Clause 5, entitled “Determination Conditions of Present Agreement,” stated the grounds
upon which each party may terminate the Employment Contract and stipulated inter alia
that:
“5.3 The Coach has the right to unilaterally terminate this Contract in all legally proven cases,
provided in this Contract or Club rules subjects signed by the Coach to 10 (ten) days written
notice to the Club.
[…]
5.5. If the Coach unilaterally terminates this Contract after December 31, 2022 in cases other
than the ones legally provided in this Contract, or if the Club terminated this Contract in case of
legally proven fault of the Coach, or if the Coach unilaterally terminates the Contract for legally
Page 3
REF FPSD-14310
proven reason of moving to another club, the Coach shall pay compensation to the Club in the
amount of 5000 EUR (five thousand euro) or negotiated amount by Parties.
[…]
5..7. If the Club unilaterally terminates this Contract after December 31, 2022 in cases other than
the ones legally provided in this Contract, or if the Coach terminated this Contract in case of
legally proven fault by the Club, the Club shall pay compensation to the Coach compensation in
the amount of 5 000 EUR (five thousand euro) or negotiated amount by parties.
5.8. The Coach shall have the right to unilaterally terminate this Contract if the Club legally
proven fails to pay salary to the Coach for longer than 3 months. In this case the Club shall pay
to the Coach compensation equal to the salary amount for the entire period left in this contract
or negotiated amount by Parties.”
6.
By correspondence dated 25 February 2024, the Coach put the Club in default of payment
of EUR 5,000 net, corresponding to the salaries for November and December 2023, setting
a time limit of 15 days in order to remedy the default.
7.
On 9 March 2024, the Coach sent a reminder to the Club that the November and December
2023 salaries were still outstanding and granted a final deadline until 22 March 2024 to
make payment.
8.
On 15 March 2024, the Club answered the aforementioned correspondence indicating that,
due to the fact that the Coach had been on holiday from 19 November 2023 to 14 January
2024, the Club considered that it did not need to pay the Coach’s salary during the holiday
period.
9.
On 19 March 2024, the Coach responded to the Club’s correspondence, stating that “There
was no agreement or discussion between FK Gintra and Mr. Petkov that he would not receive his
November and December salaries,” and, as such, the Club could not claim exception non
adimpleti contractus to justify their breach of the Employment Agreement by withholding
salaries during vacation periods. The Coach reiterated his request to receive the pending
salaries by 22 March 2024.
10. On 22 March 2024, the Club replied that the Coach had gone home for a week almost every
“FIFA window,” he had gone on holiday for 3-4 weeks in summer 2023, and he had gone on
holiday from 19 November 2023 to 14 January 2024, indicating that “it is not honest to pay
salary for 12 months.”
11. At 8:15h Eastern European Time on 25 March 2024, the Coach sent a termination notice
via email whereby he terminated the Employment Agreement (hereinafter: the Termination
Notice).
Page 4
REF FPSD-14310
12. That same day, at 11:19h Eastern European Time, the Club paid the Coach a total of EUR
5,000.
13. On 4 April 2024, the Club sent a correspondence to the Coach whereby it stated that it was
not obligated to pay the Coach’s salary during his vacation period, that the notices received
from the Coach’s legal representatives were invalid because there was no power of
attorney enclosed, and the Coach had not complied with Clause 5.8 of the Employment
Agreement. Furthermore, the Club noted that the parties had only agreed to 1 month paid
holidays by virtue of Clause 4.3 of the Employment Agreement.
14. Also on 4 April 2024, the Coach’s legal representative replied to the Club’s latest
correspondence rejecting the latter’s allegations.
15. Upon request, the Coach confirmed that he remained unemployed after terminating the
Employment Agreement with the Club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 4 April 2024, the Claimant/Counter-respondent 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/Counter-respondent
17. According to the Coach, the Club unjustly withheld his November and December 2023
salaries and it was not until it received the Termination Notice that the Respondent decided
to pay the outstanding salaries. By paying the outstanding salaries without objection
immediately after receiving the Termination Notice, the Club implicitly acknowledged its
debt. Therefore, the Club’s position that the November and December 2023 salaries were
not due should be dismissed.
18. The Coach further contended that he had just cause to terminate the Employment
Agreement, as in this case both the formal and substantive elements of art. 5.1 of Annexe
2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players were satisfied, highlighting
that the Club was given a total of 33 days to comply between the date of the default notice
and the date of termination.
19. Concerning Clause 4 of the Employment Agreement, the Coach argued that the off-season
holidays after the 2023 season were indisputably scheduled from 22 November 2023 to 11
January 2024. The Employment Agreement was valid during that time and the Respondent
did not request any services from the Coach, as even the players were on winter vacation.
The Claimant recalled the DRC’s jurisprudence, which states that “holidays are considered to
be paid absence and, thus, the Respondent must pay the Claimant’s remuneration for the
Page 5
REF FPSD-14310
duration of the holidays.” Furthermore, pursuant to Clause 4.4, the Coach was entitled to
accumulate certain days off and use them, subject to the Respondent’s permission and as
long as they were used during “suitable non-activities time.” In this respect, the Respondent
had never disputed the Coach’s right to use those extra days off and be paid for them, this
being the first time those arguments are raised and in an ex post facto manner.
20. In relation to Clause 5.8 of the Employment Agreement, the Coach argued that this clause
is not a document that is negotiated between employers’ and employees’ representatives
at the domestic level in accordance with national law (i.e., a collective bargaining
agreement). Therefore, the parties could not deviate from the conditions laid down in art.
5.1 of Annexe 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and Clause
5.8 was unenforceable.
21. Finally, the Coach disputed the legitimacy of the Club’s doubts that the legal
representatives corresponding with the Club actually represented the Coach. In any case,
the Claimant signed a power of attorney and retroactively ratified the communications that
had been sent by the legal representatives.
22. As to the compensation owed, the Coach argued that there were no outstanding salaries
as the March 2024 salary was not yet due at the time of termination. Instead, the Coach
was due compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 21,250 net, which
corresponded to the residual value of the Employment Agreement. Additionally, in the
event the Claimant signed a new contract, the Claimant claimed the mitigated
compensation plus 3 monthly salaries (i.e., EUR 7,500 net) as additional compensation, in
line with art. 6.2(b) of Annexe 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
23. The requests for relief of the Coach were therefore that the Respondent be ordered “to pay
the Claimant compensation for breach of contract of EUR 21,250 net plus interest of 5% p.a. as
of March 25, 2024, until full payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent/Counterclaimant and Counterclaim
24. On 2 May 2024, the Club filed its response and lodged a counterclaim against the Coach
seeking a reimbursement and compensation for the termination of the Employment
Agreement without just cause.
25. First, according to the Club, the Coach failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the
Club indeed breached its obligation to pay at least two monthly salaries, as required by the
referenced art. 5.1 of Annexe 2.
26. The Club highlighted the Coach’s various absences between 28 March 2023 and 29 October
2023, which, per the Club’s explanation, were unpaid vacation days and yet the Coach still
received his full salary. As such, the Club averred the Coach was overpaid for 52 days
Page 6
REF FPSD-14310
between 28 March 2023 and 19 November 2023. The Club provided copies of the Club
Director’s orders dated 27 March 2023, 26 June 2023, 15 September 2023, and 20 October
2023 establishing the dates granted for unpaid holidays.
27. It was at the Coach’s request that his off-season vacation was scheduled pursuant to his
wishes. However, the Coach was on his holiday period from 22 November 2023 to 22
December 2023 (1 month, according to Clause 4.2 of the Employment Agreement) and on
unpaid leave from 23 December 2023 to 11 January 2024.
28. For the overpayment of 52 days form 28 March 2023 to 29 October 2023, the Club argued
it exercised its right to offset this payment against the initial 21 days of November 2023
and the entirety of the paid off-season holiday extending from 22 November 2023 to 22
December 2023 (31 days).
29. Furthermore, the Club highlighted that the Coach received a full monthly salary for
February 2022 when his Employment Agreement only began on 3 February 2022. According
to Clause 3.2, salary payments commenced from the date of work commencement, which
meant the Coach was only entitled to a pro rata salary for the period he actually worked
and was overpaid by EUR 178.57. The Club argued this overpayment of EUR 178.57 was to
be allocated to November and December 2023, rendering the Coach’s claim of the Club’s
default of at least 2 monthly salaries unfounded.
30. In addition, the Club disputed the relevance of the DRC decision the Coach cited, as it did
not stand for the proposition that all holidays should invariably be paid and that the parties
could not agree otherwise.
31. As to the payment of EUR 5,000, the Club argued this was solely issued as an advance
payment in response to the Termination Notice, aimed at tempering the Coach’s resolve to
depart the Club. The Club even requested that the Coach return the overpaid balance
under the Employment Agreement on 4 April 2024, which rebutted any notion of
considering the payment of EUR 5,000 as settlement for the salaries owed for November
and December 2023.
32. Second, the Club averred that the Coach’s notice was deficient since it did not include a
signed power of attorney.
33. Third, the Club sustained that, in the event it is accepted the Coach is owed any
compensation, the Coach and the Club agreed to a liquidated damages clause in Clause 5.7
of the Employment Agreement. Conversely, Clause 5.8 stated that the Club was obligated
to pay the Coach compensation equivalent to the residual value of the Employment
Agreement only if it was terminated due to the Club’s legally proven failure to pay the Coach
salary for more than 3 months, not 2 months as the Coach claims. Therefore, the Coach’s
assertion of just cause under art. 5.1 of Annexe 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Page 7
REF FPSD-14310
Transfer of Players meant the Coach could not claim the compensation stipulated in Clause
5.8 of the Employment Agreement.
34. As to the counterclaim, the Club sought a refund of EUR 4,108.69 as overpayment for all
the days the Coach was effectively on unpaid vacation and still paid his salary. According
to the Club’s calculations, the Coach was only entitled to EUR 58,391.31 for the period
between 3 February 2022 through 24 March 2024, but was instead paid EUR 62,500.
35. Also as part of the counterclaim, the Club argued it has demonstrated that the Coach
terminated the Employment Agreement without just cause. Therefore, in accordance with
Clause 5.5, the Club was entitled to compensation in the amount of EUR 5,000 as liquidated
damages.
36. The requests for relief of the Respondent/Counterclaimant were the following:
“1) dismiss the Coach’s claim in its entirety;
2) to upheld the Club’s counterclaim and order the Coach to pay the Club:
a) EUR 4,108.69 as a refund for the overpaid amount, plus interest of 5% per annum as of
March 25, 2024;
b) EUR 5,000 as the compensation for terminating the Contract without just cause, plus
interest of 5% per annum as of March 25, 2024.”
c. Reply to the Counterclaim
37. In his reply to the Counterclaim, the Coach denied having breached his Employment
Agreement and rejected the argument that the Club was entitled to a refund or
compensation for breach of contract, requesting that the counterclaim be dismissed.
38. The Coach noted that there was no record of the alleged overpayments on days of unpaid
holidays having been raised with the Coach at the relevant time, and the evidence provided
in support was unconvincing and produced ex post facto. The Coach also alleged he never
received the Club director’s various orders provided in the Club’s reply and counterclaim
and there was no evidence that the Club notified those orders to the Coach at the relevant
time. The Coach argued the Club created those orders to serve its interests in the present
proceedings.
39. Furthermore, the Coach denied that he ever applied for unpaid leave, as the Employment
Agreement foresees, and the Club’s prior silence on the subject created the legitimate
expectation in the Coach that his vacations were to be considered as paid leave (as with all
the players on the team). To argue otherwise now goes against those legitimate
expectations, the principle of good faith, and the prohibition of venire contra factum
proprium.
Page 8
REF FPSD-14310
40. The Coach further noted that the Club’s belated argument regarding the EUR 5,000 is
defeated by its own actions, and it indeed constitutes a valid acknowledgement of debt
despite what it claimed now.
41. The Coach highlighted that the conditions for set-off were not met, since the Club never
had a claim against the Coach for those amounts, and therefore no claim against the Coach
ever fell due. In any case, the Claimant sustained that past payments cannot be used to set
off future ones, the Club never notified the Coach of its intention to apply a set-off or that
the Coach owed the Club anything, and the set-off would have seriously endangered the
Coach’s livelihood as it amounted to 2 entire monthly salaries (16.6% of his annual wages).
42. As to the compensation, the Coach argued Clause 5.7 of the Employment Agreement could
not be taken into account because it raises issues regarding proportionality, as the
agreement was supposed to run until 15 November 2024.
43. Finally, since the parties agreed on compensation whose value does not comply with the
mandatory minimum provision in the RSTP, the rules for calculating compensation set out
in art. 6.2 of Annexe 2 RSTP shall apply. Furthermore, as a general rule, where the damage
suffered exceeds the penalty amount, the creditor may claim further compensation if he
can prove the debtor was at fault (cf. art. 161.2 Swiss Code of Obligations). Therefore,
nothing prevented the Coach from claiming compensation in excess of the liquidated
damages clause in Clause 5.7, given that the Club was at fault. Therefore, the Coach’s claim
for compensation could not be limited as the Club argued.
III. Considerations of the Players’ Status Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
44. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
Single Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this
respect, she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 4 April 2024 and
submitted for decision on 6 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.
45. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 2 of the Procedural
Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 2 in combination with art. 22 par.
1 lit. c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024), she is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute between a club and a coach of an international dimension.
Page 9
REF FPSD-14310
46. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 April 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
47. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may
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
48. Her competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that, in the following
considerations, she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence
which she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
49. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and noted that this case pertains to, on one hand, a claim by a coach for
compensation for breach of contract, and on the other, a counterclaim by a club requesting
a refund in overpaid salaries and compensation for unilateral termination without just
cause.
50. The Single Judge noted that the Coach claimed he terminated the Employment Agreement
for just cause, whereas the Club contended that it should be reimbursed for certain
amounts that were paid in excess to the Coach, in addition to compensation for breach of
contract without just cause.
51. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine whether the
Coach had just cause to terminate the Employment Agreement and, in view of such
conclusion, what were the consequences.
52. In order to determine whether the Coach had just cause for outstanding salaries, the Single
Judge began by considering whether the circumstances and evidence provided establish
Page 10
REF FPSD-14310
the requirements set forth in art. 5 par. 1 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations. As to the first
requirement, the Single Judge noted that it is undisputed that the Coach did not receive his
regular salary payments of EUR 2,500 net for the months of November and December 2023
as in previous months (a total of EUR 5,000 net). Indeed, the Single Judge highlighted that,
by the Club’s own admission, it was not until the Club received the Termination Notice that
the Club paid out EUR 5,000 net to the Coach. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence in
the file, the Single Judge concluded that the Club indeed recognized the debt outstanding
with the Coach and that the Club’s allegations to the contrary were unsubstantiated.
53. Specifically, with regards to the Club‘s arguments that any outstanding salaries must be set
off by the alleged overpayment for what should have been unpaid leave, the Single Judge
held that there were scarce elements in the file that would lend support to the Club’s
calculations. In this sense, the Single Judge also took note of the fact that the Club only
brought up these justifications for deductions due to vacation days once the Coach had put
the Club in default, and nevertheless paid out the outstanding EUR 5,000.
54. Similarly, the Single Judge recalled that, while the Club furnished orders from the Club
Director granting holidays for specific dates, there was no evidence provided that these
orders were delivered to the Coach or that, in the case of the unpaid leave purportedly
being granted, that this was mutually agreed by the Coach and Club per Clause 4.3 of the
Employment Contract (“In special or personal cases, the Coach can use one-month unpaid
holiday by written agreement with the Club authorities.”)
55. In any case, the Single Judge underscored that none of the Coach’s salaries were reduced
at the relevant time to account for the unpaid holidays the Coach had allegedly been
granted, or for the alleged overpayment in February 2022. The Single Judge particularly
noted that, according to the bank statements provided by the Club, the Coach was paid his
full monthly salary of EUR 2,500 for March 2023, April 2023 and January 2024, whereas the
salary for December 2023 appears to have been fully satisfied with the EUR 5,000 payment
executed on 25 March 2024.
56. In the Single Judge’s view, the evidence on file did not support the Club’s allegations
concerning overpayment for holidays and the claimed set-off, and such allegations are
defeated by the Club’s own actions. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Coach
had just cause to terminate the Employment Agreement due to the non-payment of two
entire monthly salaries and after having put the Club on notice with 15 days’ opportunity
to cure.
ii. Consequences
57. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Coach by the Club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Single
Judge firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 6 par. 2 of Annexe 2 of the
Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless
Page 11
REF FPSD-14310
otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration
for the remuneration and other benefits due to the coach under the existing contract
and/or the new contract and the time remaining on the existing contract.
58. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she 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.
59. In this regard, the Single Judge took note of the wording of Clause 5 of the Employment
Agreement, which appeared to establish a specific amount of compensation depending on
the circumstances surrounding the termination. More specifically, the Clause established,
in relevant part, that:
“[…]
5..7. If the Club unilaterally terminates this Contract after December 31, 2022 in cases other than
the ones legally provided in this Contract, or if the Coach terminated this Contract in case of
legally proven fault by the Club, the Club shall pay compensation to the Coach compensation in
the amount of 5 000 EUR (five thousand euro) or negotiated amount by parties.
5.8. The Coach shall have the right to unilaterally terminate this Contract if the Club legally
proven fails to pay salary to the Coach for longer than 3 months. In this case the Club shall pay
to the Coach compensation equal to the salary amount for the entire period left in this contract
or negotiated amount by Parties.”
60. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Single Judge concluded that
it did not fulfil the criteria of reciprocity and proportionality, in line with the longstanding
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal, and therefore could not be taken into account for
establishing the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant.
61. In particular, the Single Judge noted that Clause 5.7 was disproportionate as it stipulated
an amount equal to only 2 monthly salaries as compensation for the Coach, which was
significantly inferior to the remaining period of validity of the Employment Agreement
(another 7.5 months). As for Clause 5.8, the Single Judge reasoned that this clause afforded
the Coach a right to terminate due to the non-payment of 3 salaries, but that this
contractual right was not to the exclusion of the provisions of Annexe 2 of the Regulations.
As such, the Single Judge held that the Coach’s right to terminate the Employment
Agreement for unpaid salaries under the Regulations was not curtailed or otherwise waived
by the terms of Clause 5.8.
62. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Club to the Coach had to be assessed in application of the parameters set out in art.
6 par. 2 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations. The Single Judge recalled that said provision
Page 12
REF FPSD-14310
provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
63. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the Coach’s claim, the Single Judge proceeded with
the calculation of the monies payable to the Coach under the terms of the contract until its
term. In this sense, the Single Judge recalled that the Coach terminated the Employment
Agreement on 25 March 2024 and that the Employment Agreement does not specify the
due dates for salary. However, according to the bank statements provided by the Club, the
Club paid the Coach in the subsequent month or later, and in some instances split
payments with no apparent pattern. As such, in line with the DRC’s jurisprudence, the
Single Judge considered that the salaries were due by the end of the month in which they
accrued, in the absence of a contractual term establishing the due dates.
64. Moreover, the Single Judge highlighted that, according to the usual practice of the DRC and
contrary to the Coach’s submissions, the March 2024 salary would be considered
outstanding salary.
65. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 18,750 net (i.e., salary
for 7.5 months x EUR 2,500 net) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
66. In continuation, the Single Judge verified whether the Coach 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
Single Judge as well as art. 6 par. 2 lit. b) of Annex 2 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 Coach’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
67. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Coach remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
68. The Single Judge then referred to art. 6 par. 2 lit. a) of Annex 2 of the Regulations, according
to which, in case the coach 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.
69. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to award the Coach compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 18,750 net as the residual value of the contract.
70. Moreover, taking into consideration the Coach’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Coach interest at the rate of
5% p.a. on the outstanding remuneration as of 1 April 2024 until the date of effective
Page 13
REF FPSD-14310
payment, and on the awarded compensation as of the date of termination until the date
of effective payment.
71. Finally, and in view of the above findings that (i) there was no contractual or other basis to
apply the claimed salary deductions, and (ii) the Coach terminated the Employment
Agreement with just cause, the Single Judge concluded that the counterclaim shall be
rejected.
i. Compliance with monetary decisions
72. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 8
par. 1 and 2 of Annexe 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.
73. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
74. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Coach within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the creditor, 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 Club in
accordance with art. 8 par. 2, 4, and 7 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations.
75. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
76. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 8 par. 8
of Annexe 2 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
77. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-14310
78. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules,
and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.
79. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded her deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-14310
IV. Decision of the Players’ Status Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-respondent, Kaloyan Petkov, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counterclaimant, FK Gintra, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counterclaimant must pay to the Claimant/Counter-respondent the
following amount(s):
- EUR 2,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 18,750 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 25 March 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the parties are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 8 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if
full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of
this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 8 par. 7 and 8 of Annexe 2 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-14310
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 17