Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5582
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 07 July 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Abel
Mathias Hernandez Platero
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER, Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
ANDRADE, José Luis (Portugal), Member
LUKASEK, Peter (Slovakia), Member
CLAIMANT:
Abel Mathias Hernandez Platero, Uruguay
Represented by Luca Tettamanti
RESPONDENT:
Al Ahli SC, Qatar
Page 2
REF FPSD-5582
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 27 July 2019, the Uruguayan player, Mr Abel Mathias Hernandez Platero (hereinafter:
the player or the Claimant), and the Qatari club, Al Ahli SC (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent), concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2019 until 30 June
2020 (hereinafter: the employment contract).
2.
Article XII of the employment contract read as follows:
“1. This Contract – which supersedes any previous agreement, contract and/or document
exchanged and/or signed between the parties – is the only contractual document in force
by and between the Parties.
2. As far as the Parties would like to deviate and/or enter into additional agreements from
this Contract, such relevant agreements shall be expressly stipulated in the Football Player’s
Schedule 2 to this Contract which, if signed by the Parties and approved by the QFA/QSLM,
states an integral part of this Contract”.
3.
Article XIV of the employment contract read as follows:
“1. This Contract is governed firstly by the QFA/QSLM regulations and subsidiarily by the
Laws of the State of Qatar as well as AFC and FIFA Regulations.
2. Any dispute between the club and the player arisen in connection with the present
Contract shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Qatar Sports Arbitration
Tribunal (QSAT), if operational, which shall be settled in accordance with the QSAT
procedural rules.
3. As a transitionary rule as long as the QSAT is not yet operational, the QFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC), if established, shall have the exclusive jurisdiction for any
disputes related to this Contract. Subsidiarily and as long as the QFA DRC has not yet been
established, FIFA shall hear employment-related disputes related to this Contract in
accordance with the relevant FIFA regulations governing this matter. This transitionary rule
is without prejudice to the competence of Qatari courts to hear employment related
disputes.
4. Decisions of the QSAT are final and binding and not subject to appeal. In particular, an
appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport with its seat in Lausanne / Switzerland is
expressly excluded”.
4.
In addition, pursuant to Schedule 1 to the employment contract, the club undertook to
pay a total amount of EUR 2,374,814 net to the player, as follows:
Page 3
REF FPSD-5582
a. EUR 2,300,000 net as salaries, being EUR 500,000 net to be paid on 15 August 2019
and the remaining 1,800,000 in instalments “to be paid at the end of each Gregorian
month for the period from 01/09/2019 until 30/06/2020”;
b. EUR 4,977 net as monthly housing;
c. EUR 580 net as monthly car allowance; and
d. EUR 13,687 net as “6 tickets”.
5.
Finally, art. 6 of the Schedule 1 to the employment contract read as follows: “Taxes / Social
contribution: the player’s income refers to net amounts in the State of Qatar. Any taxes, social
costs, contributions or any other amounts the Player may need to pay in the country of his
residence or any other country are to be borne by the player and the club insofar shall not be
obliged to pay any additional amounts to the player as those agreed upon in this Contract”.
6.
On 10 February 2020, the Doctor Mauricio Laufer issued a declaration confirming that the
player’s wife, Ms Florencia Argento, was pregnant and that delivery was estimated to take
place on 23 March 2020.
7.
On 11 March 2020, the player’s daughter was born.
8.
On 14 March 2020, the Qatar Football Association (QAT) announced the suspension of
the local sporting activities until 29 March 2020 due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Said
suspension was subsequently extended on 28 March, 14 April, 1 May, and 15 May 2020,
ultimately until 31 May 2022.
9.
On 2 April 2020, the player sent the club an official letter by means of which he: (i)
acknowledged that his daughter was born on 11 March 2022; however he was prevented
from visiting his wife; (ii) referred to the COVID-19 pandemic and requested to be formally
authorized to travel to Uruguay; or (iii) on a subsidiary basis, requested authorization to
travel to Uruguay on annual leave. The player asked the club to provide him with an
answer within the following 24 hours.
10. On 7 April 2020, the player recalled his letter dated 2 April 2020 and sent the club an
“urgent reminder”.
11. On 8 April 2020, the club replied to the player’s letter and informed as follows: “no
objection to your personal request to travel on 11-04-2020 upon condition that you will be
back to Doha on 21-04-2020”. Moreover, the club alleged that any delay would be subject
to sanctions and salary suspension. Likewise, it highlighted that “Doha Airport may be still
closed for any incoming flights to Doha – Except for Qatari Nationals, relatives of Qatari wives,
their husbands and holders of permanent residence”.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5582
12. On 9 April 2020, the player wrote back to the club and following an alleged conversation
via telephone between the parties, acknowledged the following:
“1. His absence in the period 11-21 April will be considered as a paid leave according to
article VI of the Contract;
2. The player acknowledges the possible obstacles in his return trip to Qatar including
closure of Doha Airport or entry for foreigners. He accepts that he will bear the risk of any
delay, even caused by external circumstances, and that the club shall be authorized not to
pay him the pr-rata salary for any day of delay in joining the club’s activities. However, if
these unfortunate circumstances will occur, apart from the possible non-payment of salary,
the player’s possible prolonged absence or late return to the club shall neither be reason to
impose additional disciplinary sanctions nor to terminate the contract for just cause on the
club’s side.
No reply by your side to the present letter will amount to your club’s full acceptance of the
above although any written feedback from your club will be appreciated”.
13. On 10 April 2020, the player sent a new correspondence to the club and confirmed his
acceptance conditioned to the terms described in his letter of 9 April 2020.
14. On 28 April 2020, the club sent the player a letter by means of which it: (i) acknowledged
that the player had not returned on the scheduled date; and (ii) informed that his salaries
would be “suspended until further notice”.
15. On 29 April 2020, the player replied to the club and inter alia requested clarification on
the dates of re-starting the national championship and group trainings. The player asked
to be provided with a training schedule.
16. On 2 May 2020, the club sent the player its reply. In this opportunity, the club asked the
player the reasons why he did not return to Doha and briefly addressed to the player’s
query on the training schedule. At the end, the club recalled that the player’s absence
would be subject to salary suspension.
17. On 5 May 2020, the player informed the club that he “was unable to fly back on the
scheduled date because his new-born daughter was urgently hospitalized in intensive pediatric
care from 18 April 2020 until 21 April 2020”. In addition, the player wrote as follows:
“Considering that the football championship in Qatar as well as the group trainings of your
Club are still suspended with no specific date for their re-starting, the Player maintains that he
will abide to any individual training schedule prepared by the Club’s coach staff that you would
serve him during these days. In this way, his current absence will neither affect your first team
suspended activities nor his physical shape. We however kindly request your Club to inform the
Player as soon as the group activities of your Club resume to organise his travel back”.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5582
18. On 17 May 2020, the QFA announced that the domestic competitions for the season
2019/2020 would be completed between 24 July and 26 August 2020.
19. On 18 May 2020, the club sent the player a letter informing that the trainings would
officially resume on 10 June 2020, as well as the whole team and coaching staff would
undergo medical tests on 8 June 2020. What is more, it requested in verbis: “we kindly
request that you come back to Doha by 23rd, May 2020 as you will have to stay in quarantine
for two weeks (14 days) once you arrive”. Lastly, the club recalled that the player’s salaries
would remain suspended until his return.
20. On 22 May 2020, the player replied to the club’s letter and informed that he was willing
to go back to Doha, however “the government of Montevideo has closed the only airport in
the country due to the COVID-19 emergency making it impossible for him to fly back until
further notice”. Moreover, he pointed out: “considering that the impossibility of our client to
travel back is out of his control, we therefore ask and deem that these days can be counted as
annual paid leave of the Player according to article VI of the Contract. We will immediately
inform you when the Player will be able to travel back to Doha for your Club to purchase the
relevant flight ticket according to clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the Contract”.
21. On 27 May 2020, the player sent the club a notice and requested it to issue the flight ticket
for him to resume his services in Doha.
22. On 29 May 2020, the player reiterated his request for the flight tickets to be issued by the
club. The content of the letter was, inter alia, the following:
“For the sake of clarity, the Player is keen to resume trainings with your Club and that is why
we reiterate our request that you provide him with the return ticket Motevideo-DohaMotevideo.
Pursuant to clause 3 of the Schedule 1 of the Contract the flight tickets are enshrined as
‘other entitlements’ meaning that they are not included in the monthly salary as your Club
wrongly referred to in the first letter.
Secondly, considering that pursuant to the QFA announcement the local competitions will
resume and run from 24 July to 26 August 2020 and that our client’s Contract expires on 30
June 2020, we kindly ask you to provide us with an offer for his salary and bonuses for the
period from 1 July 2020 onwards to be evaluated by our client before travelling back to
Doha”.
23. On 2 June 2020, the club replied to the player’s letter with the following considerations:
“1. As per the page 3 and 4 of the attachment, the Club, to date, has already paid the player
the total amount of QAR 43,416. i.e, EUR 10,666 for his flight tickets. So, the Club provided
cash for the player to buy his own flight tickets.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5582
2. We are waiting the Player to come back at the earliest date possible. Nevertheless, as
stated in our previous correspondence and also confirmed by Mr Luca Tettamanti, "he [the
Player] accepts that he will
bear the risk of any delay, even caused by external circumstances, and that the Club shall
be authorised not to pay him the pro-rota salary for any day of delay in joining the Club's
activities".
3. Therefore, until the Player arrives in Doha, the Club will not pay his salaries (pro rota), as
agreed. Therefore, we urge the Player to book his tickets and return to Doha immediately.
4. In regard to the salary beyond 30 June 2020 and considering the remaining matches of
the League will be played between 25 July until 25 August 2020, the Player will receive a pro
rata salary based on his current employment contract from 1 July 2020 until a day after the
last match”.
24. On 9 June 2020, the player commented on the club’s latest correspondence. In particular,
he opposed having received any funding for the flight tickets from the club and requested
confirmation of the specific conditions of their contractual relationship during the
extension for the national championship. The player requested the club to send him a
new schedule to the employment contract formalizing such conditions before travelling
back to Doha.
25. On 22 June 2020, the player’s representative sent an email to the club attaching the
itinerary of his flight to Doha (with a stopover in Istanbul, Turkey), bought at his own
expenses. Moreover, he informed that the player was “blocked since yesterday evening at
Istanbul Airport due to the lack of proper documentation to fly to Qatar”. As such, he urged
the club to contact him to remedy the situation, under penalty of him flying back to
Uruguay.
26. Also on 22 June 2020, the club solved the player’s entry problem and provided him with
flight tickets from Istanbul to Doha for the same day.
27. Between 22 and 24 June 2020, the player’s representative exchanged WhatsApp
messages with a club’s representative regarding the mandatory quarantine and individual
fitness trainings. The club booked the player a room in a hotel for the period between 21
June and 7 July 2020.
28. On 26 June 2020, the player wrote to the club informing that he was quarantining in the
hotel in Doha however had not yet been contacted by the club to formalize extension of
the employment contract until 25 August 2020. He also acknowledged having been
informed about the hiring of a new foreigner player by the club (supposedly as his
replacement) and requested clarification within 24 hours.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5582
29. On 29 June 2020, the club replied to the player’s letter and provided the following
explanation:
“1. [The club] did its best to provide the player with the chance to train and it was not an
easy process to let him come into the country due to the strict measures taken by both
Turkish and Qatari Authorities in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19. As you may be
aware all gyms are closed as part of the preventive measures. The player was also fully
aware of the hardships he would face about returning to Doha when he signed the letter
dated 08-04-2020.
2. The player's contract expires on 30-06-2020 and an extension will not be signed. On 2
June, we just answered you how the player would get paid in case an extension would be
signed, and not agreeing to such an extension whatsoever.
3. As for the total amount of the salaries to be paid to the player, they are highlighted in the
below table.
Total contract amount from 01-07-2019
till 30-06-2020 (including all allowances:
tickets, car and housing)
Total amounts paid to the player from
01-07-2020 till 31-03-2020
Total amount paid to the player from 0104-2020 till 10-04-2020
Total amount paid to the player from 1104-2020 till 21-06-2020
Total amount to be paid to the player
from 22-06-2020 till 30-06-2020
2,374,814 Euro (two million three hundred seventyfour thousand and eight hundred fourteen Euros)
1,814,410 Euro (one million eight hundred fourteen
thousand and four hundred ten Euros)
62,267 Euro (sixty-two thousand and two hundred
sixty-seven Euro) still pending to be paid because the
player did not come back by the end of April 2020
Player was absent – no paid salaries
56,040 Euro (fifty-six thousand and forty Euros)
30. On 30 June 2020, the player replied to the club’s letter. In doing so, he (i) disputed the
club’s position as to the non-extension of the employment contract – allegedly against the
conditioned proposal previously made on 2 June 2020; (ii) acknowledged that the club did
not make comments of the hiring of the new foreigner player; (iii) disputed the
outstanding remuneration owed by the club; and (iv) concluded as follows: “In view of the
above, we expect that your Club complied with its commitments. Any unilateral change on the
agreed new Contract terms by your Club or a lack of payment of the due amounts will mean a
breach of the Contract and will result in compensation in favour of our client”.
31. In accordance with the player, on 1 July 2020 he participated in a video conference with
the club’s representative whereby it was allegedly established that the employment
contract would indeed be extended.
Page 8
REF FPSD-5582
32. On 2 July 2020, the player sent a letter to the club referring to the e-meeting held the day
before and formalizing the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. He
furthermore requested to be provided with written confirmation of the following:
“1. Outstanding remuneration: EUR 118,307
Composed by EUR 62,267 for the period from 1 April until 10 April 2020 and EUR 56,040 for
the period from 22 June until 30 June 2020.
2. Paid leaves to be paid by the Club: EUR 143,214
Composed by 23 days of annual leave x EUR 6,226 per day
In this regard the player accepted that he had already used during December 2019 no. 7
days of annual leave.
3. Period of absence between 11 April and 21 June 2020: the Player accepts not to be paid
the part of salary which is not considered paid leave as per point 2 above.
4. Salary between 1 July and 26 August 2020: EUR 370,842
This is the pro-rata salary composed by no. 57 days of salary x EUR 6,506 per day (this is
because the overall remuneration of the Player during the previous period of 12 months
was EUR 2,374,814)
5. Paid leaves pro-rata for 57 days: EUR 29,277
Composed by 4.5 days (30 days paid leave per year / 365 days x 57 days) x EUR 6,506”.
33. On 5 July 2020, the club replied as follows:
“1. [The club] hereby confirms that the outstanding remuneration is Euro 118,307 composed
by Euro 62,267 for the period from 01-04-2020 until 10-04-2020 and Euro 56,040 for the
period from 22-06-2020 until 30-06-2020.
2. [The club] hereby confirms again that the Paid leaves to be paid by the club is
Euro:143,214 (composed by 23 days of annual leave days).
3. As already informed by the club that your contract with the club was expired on 30-062020 and referring to the letter sent to you by the club on 01-07-2020 in which the club
clearly informed you not i:o engage in any trainings with the first team and that you will be
responsible for the payment of any expenses related to any injuries.
4. Finally, [the club] once again wants to make it clear that no extension of contract is yet
signed or confirmed by the club”.
Page 9
REF FPSD-5582
34. Also on 5 July 2020, the club sent the player a “player clearance” establishing the
outstanding remuneration owed to the player and determining that the employment
contract had expired on 30 June 2020 and no further obligations existed.
35. On 6 July 2020, the player replied to the club’s letter indicating surprise and disconcert
about its intention to end their employment relationship (and in contravention to the
content of its previous letters as well as the understandings during the video conference).
At this point, the player reiterated his request to be provided with the written proof of
extension of the employment contract under penalty of leaving Doha for good and
seeking relief before the competent courts.
36. On 7 July 2020, the club recalled its position as to the expiry of the employment contract
and requested the player to sign the financial clearance dated 5 July 2020 “so that the club
can start the process of transferring the remaining amounts”.
37. On the same date, the club sent the player a written invitation to avail himself at the club’s
headquarters in order to sign the financial clearance.
38. On 8 July 2020, the club sent the player another correspondence according to which it
informed that: (i) the outstanding remuneration would be paid on 22 July 2020 even
though the player had not signed the financial clearance; (ii) the player was free to leave
Qatar; and (iii) due to the COVID-19 pandemic it would not sign any extension with the
player, hence the employment contract was expired since 30 June 2020.
39. On 11 July 2020, the player travelled back to Montevideo, Uruguay at his own expenses.
40. On 23 July 2020, the club sent the player proof of payment of EUR 261,521 and underlined
that it had fulfilled all its obligations. The player, on the other hand, acknowledged receipt
of QAR 1,069,141.31, corresponding to EUR 254,669.46.
41. On 27 July 2020, the player replied to the club and requested payment of EUR 406,970.54
within the following 10 days. The amount comprised: (i) EUR 6,851.54 as the balance of
his outstanding remuneration; and (ii) EUR 400,119 as compensation for breach of
contract bearing in mind that the club “prevented the player to carry out his activities until
the end of the championship on 25 August 2020”.
42. On 1 August 2020, the club wrote back to the player and insisted that there were no
overdue payments owed to the player. In particular, the club rejected the player’s position
as to the breach of contract and affirmed that no extension was confirmed.
43. On 25 August 2020, the player signed a new employment contract with the Brazilian club,
Sport Club Internacional, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2021.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5582
44. On 1 September 2020, the player gave the club a “final warning” to pay the outstanding
remuneration and compensation within 10 days.
45. On 5 September 2020, the club replied via email and confirmed that no further action
would be taken insofar as the financial duties were already fully complied with.
46. On 14 April 2021, the player signed a new employment contract with the Brazilian club,
Fluminense Football Club, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2021.
47. On 21 December 2021, the player signed a new employment contract with the Mexican
club, Atlético de San Luis, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2022.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
48. On 25 March 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of the player
49. As a starting point, the player stressed that FIFA is competent to adjudicate on the matter
based on the following considerations:
a. the Qatar Sports Arbitration Tribunal (QSAT) does not meet the cumulative criteria
of independence and impartiality required by the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and the FIFA Circular n. 1010/2005, insofar as it “does
not respect the principle of equal representation (principle of parity) of players and
clubs”;
b. article XIV od the employment contract does not constitute a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of QSAT as it admits that FIFA could accept its
competence at some point;
c. the player is no longer affiliated to the QFA, hence “it is thus disputed that that a
dispute between a Qatari club and an unaffiliated player to the QFA can be brought to
the QSAT”;
d. the club denied having agreed to the extension of the employment contract,
therefore it cannot raise the validity of the jurisdiction clause therein included; and
e. accepting the jurisdiction of QSAT would lead to irreparable damage taking into
consideration that the proceedings are not free of charge and oblige the player to
engage the services of a lawyer registered in Qatar.
Page 11
REF FPSD-5582
50. As to the substance, the player first argued that the club failed to pay an undisputed part
of his entitlements amounting to EUR 6,851.54. Consequently, he requested to be granted
such concept plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2020 until the date of effective payment.
51. Having established the above, the player moved to the issue of the extension and
termination of the employment contract by the club.
52. In this respect, the club referred to the Swiss Law and the jurisprudence of the Swiss
Federal Tribunal (SFT) regarding renewals and amendments of employment agreements
and argued that “it is irrefutable that the Parties duly agreed to extend the Contract from 1
July 2020 until 26 August 2020 taking into account the resuming of the competitions in July and
August 2020”. The player provided detailed comments on this matter vis-à-vis the several
correspondences exchanged between the parties while he was in Uruguay and planning
to go back to Qatar.
53. Specifically, the player stated the following:
“It would therefore be illogic for both Parties that the Player would go back to Qatar if this
was not linked to the Player’s participation in the official competitions due to be held in July
and August 2020. In particular it would be no sense for the Player from a sporting point of
view to go back to Qatar –quoting the fake late arguments of the Club – just to train for
8days (!) waiting for the Contract’s expiration on 30 June 2020 and it would have been also
absurd for the Club to re-start paying the suspended salaries to have him just training 8
days when the same athlete had to spend14 days into quarantine
[…] Additionally, the Club’s clear intention is also corroborated by evidence showing that the
Club (i) arranged and solved at the end of June 2020 the Player’s arrival in Qatar, (ii)
provided a flight ticket and a hotel booking until 7 July 2020 where he had to spend the
quarantine, (iii) solved issues arose at the airport and (iv) instructed the Player with a daily
individual training schedule”.
54. Therefore, the player is of the opinion that the employment contract was extended and
subsequently breached when the club unilaterally released him a few days after he
arrived in Doha. In this respect, he pointed out that the “financial problems” alleged by the
club as the reason not to extend his contract were false. Had that be the case, the player
deems that the club could have negotiated the financial conditions of the new contract
and would not have hired a second foreigner player to take his place.
55. As a consequence, the player concluded that the club terminated the employment
contract without just cause and should be liable to pay him compensation, in line with art.
14 and 17 of the FIFA RSTP. As to the quantum, he explained that the residual value of the
employment contract amounted to EUR 400,119 (i.e. pro rata salary and paid leaves).
Moreover, he requested to be awarded interest of 5% p.a. as from the date of the
Page 12
REF FPSD-5582
termination of the employment contract (i.e. 8 July 2020) until the date of effective
payment.
b. Reply of the club
56. On 28 April 2022, the club filed its reply to the player’s claim.
57. First and foremost, the club challenged FIFA’s jurisdiction to hear the dispute at stake.
Conversely to the player’s allegations in this respect, the club maintained that “the QSAT
is an independent tribunal with a complete set of arbitration rules, which satisfies the
requirements of FIFA Regulations and Circular 1010, and was explicitly agreed upon by both
Parties as the competent authority to exclusively settle the present dispute”.
58. Likewise, the club outlined that article XIV of the employment contract constitutes a clear
and exclusive jurisdiction clause insofar as it only accepts FIFA’s jurisdiction in case the
QSAT is not operational. The club also referred to the jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC) in support of its allegations concerning such clause.
59. In addition to the above, the club pointed out that: (i) QSAT’s jurisdiction is based on
arbitration agreements, therefore there is not any limitation because the player was no
longer affiliated to QFA; and (ii) “while the present dispute concerns an alleged amendment
to extend the Contract, Article I of the Contract states that any amendments to the Contract
will only be made in Schedule 2 of the Football Player´s Contract thus leaving remainder of the
Contract, including the Arbitration agreement in Article XIV intact”.
60. Based on the above, the club concluded that FIFA should reject its jurisdiction over the
present matter.
61. Thereafter, the club moved to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it initially
alleged that the outstanding remuneration owed to the player was entirely paid on 23 July
2020 as confirmed by the SWIFT on file. Hence, the club claimed that “this amount is
furthermore not subject to any further taxes, charges or levies and as result there is no
evidence or reason for the alleged shortfall”.
62. The club strongly opposed the player’s argumentation as to the extension of the
employment contract. The club’s position in this context can be summarised as follows:
a. the Swiss Law and the jurisprudence of the SFT are not relevant to the case because
the employment contract is governed by WFA and QSLM regulations and
subsidiarily by the Laws of the State of Qatar and the Asian Football Confederation
(AFC) / FIFA Regulations. As such, the club referred to the Qatar Civil Code,
according to which “neither Party can claim the existence of a contract if it is not in the
agreed form, without the consent of the other party”, and alleged that the same was
corroborated by FIFA’s Guidelines (and FAQs) to address the consequences of
Page 13
REF FPSD-5582
COVID-19, which read inter alia that “the FIFA judicial bodies will generally recognise
any amendment to an agreement that is made in writing with the signature of all
parties”;
b. the discussions between the parties pertaining to a potential amendment and
extension of the employment contract “do not satisfy the explicitly agreed upon
formalities and therefore cannot be construed as amounting to a valid Contract,
especially when FIFA itself states the requirement of such amendment be in writing and
signed by all the parties”;
c. “the club is not utilizing the COVID-19 pandemic as a tool to usurp existing financial
obligations – the player’s contract had expired, and the club had duly fulfilled all
financial obligations under it. Rather, and this distinction is significant, the club noted
that It was unable to take on new and additional financial obligations as a result of
COVID-19”; and
d. the club signed the player Ahmed Akaichi – as pointed out by the player – however
with a monthly salary of USD 53,000 instead of the USD 180,000 of the player.
63. By explaining the above, the club concluded that the formalities were not properly
fulfilled, and the negotiations were never valid and binding to the parties. As such, it
stated that the employment contract was not validly extended in line with the
jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and FIFA regulations. It follows,
in the club’s view, that “there was no termination without just cause and no compensation
will be due to the Claimant”.
64. In light of the foregoing, the prayers for relief of the club were as follows:
“The Respondent respectfully requests the DRC to:
a. Decide the Claim is inadmissible, as the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber does not
have jurisdiction over the present matter.
Alternatively, if the above is rejected, to:
a. Reject the Claim in its entirety and declare that there was no valid extension of the
Contract and that all amounts paid by the Club to the Player represent the totality of
the obligations towards him in accordance with the Contract”.
c. Rejoinder of the player
65. On 3 May 2022, the player filed his rejoinder. He challenged the club’s argumentation
based on the following.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5582
66. As to the admissibility, the player was of the opinion that the club could not demonstrate
that the QSAT concretely guarantees the respect of principle of parity. On the contrary,
the player referred to cases in which the DRC recognized the exact opposite (such as the
one quoted by the club in its reply) and alleged that no statutory change was made in the
between.
67. Therefore, the player echoed his argumentation in the sense that FIFA is competent to
hear the case sub judice.
68. As to the substance, the player reiterated his allegations as to the outstanding payment
underlining that the club did only submit a payment order and not a proof of payment of
the respective amounts. Consequently, the player alleged that it did not meet its burden
of proof to show the amount that was effectively transferred and not “presumably
transferred”.
69. As to the extension of the employment contract, the player held that the club’s
argumentation was contradictory because the lack of signature of an annex to the
employment contract was “solely attributable to the club’s conduct and cannot reasonably
be used in good faith by the same club to now try to avoid its obligations”. In this context, the
player referred to the principle of nemo auditor propriam suam turpitudinem allegans and
CAS’ jurisprudence on the matter.
70. In support the above, the player highlighted that the parties gave their consent to the
extension in writing (via correspondences) and any interpretation on the contrary would
amount to an excessive formalism. The player furthermore added that the Qatari national
law should not be applicable to the case at hand, as well as that FIFA Guidelines were nonbinding recommendations and could not be used by the club to go against the player.
71. By way of conclusion, the player argued as follows: “All the circumstances of the present
case unequivocally demonstrate the Club's explicit agreement to the extension of the Contract.
It will not escape the FIFA DRC that the Respondent in its Answer does not deny that it (i) asked
the Player to immediately return to the Club only some weeks before the alleged end of the
Contract in order to take part of the remaining matches of the season, (ii) solved his entry
issues in Qatar, (iii) booked a hotel room for the Player for a period beyond 30 June 2020, (iv)
organised his daily training sessions during that period (v) that the Player trained and was
available to the Club beyond the initial term of the Contract (vi) and even that the extension
was reaffirmed between the Parties in a video conference on 1 July 2020”.
72. Along the same lines, the player pointed out that the club confirmed having signed
another foreigner player, corroborating his argumentation that it “changed its mind” after
having previously agreed to the extension of the employment contract.
73. Lastly, the player fully reiterated his requests for relief as per his statement of claim.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5582
d. Final comments of the club
74. On 10 May 2020, the club submitted its final comments in reply to the player’s rejoinder.
75. As to the jurisdiction, the club maintained its position and added that articles 37 – 46 of
the QSAF Statutes address the representation of players and clubs taking into
consideration the principle of parity. Likewise, the club opposed the player’s position as
to the exclusivity of the jurisdiction clause included in the employment contract and
reiterated that FIFA is not competent to entertain the substance of this case.
76. Subsequently, the club recalled its position as to the outstanding remuneration and
clarified that “any further charges or levies from outside of the State of Qatar which the EUR
261,521 may be subject to, in line with Article 6 Schedule 1 of the Contract, are to be borne by
the Player himself and not by the Club”. This because “the Contract clearly outlines that the
amounts due under the Contract are only net amounts under the laws of the State of Qatar
and that further charges or levies on payments made under the Contract are to be borne by
the Player and not by the Club”.
77. Having established the above, the club insisted in its position as to the (non) extension of
the employment contract in line with the Qatari national law and FIFA Guidelines. As such,
he repeated that the player’s claim should not succeed.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
78. 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 25 March 2022 and submitted
for decision on 7 July 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 2022
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.
79. 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 (July 2022 edition), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
an Uruguayan player and a Qatari club.
Page 16
REF FPSD-5582
80. At this point, the DRC acknowledged that the club contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies on the basis of art. XIV of the employment contract, highlighting that the
parties had agreed on the exclusive jurisdiction of the QSAT. The player, on the other
hand, disputed the validity of the jurisdiction clause and inter alia argued that QSAT does
not fulfil the minimum requirements of the FIFA Circular no. 1010 and the FIFA National
Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations.
81. In view of this dissent between the parties, the Chamber initially turned its attention to
the analysis of the wording of art. XIV of the employment contract and – conversely to the
argumentation of the player – considered that it does constitute a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the QSAT. In particular, the DRC concurred with the
interpretation of the club according to which FIFA would (in principle) only be competent
to hear the dispute at stake in the event the QSAT was not operational, which did not
seem to be the case.
82. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber recalled that even with a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause included in the employment contract, the interested party shall
demonstrate that the independent national arbitration tribunal guarantees fair
proceedings and respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
83. In this respect, the DRC underlined that the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs constitutes one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled in order for a
national dispute resolution chamber to be duly recognised. Indeed, this prerequisite is
mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular
no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the
aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following
members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy
chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three
and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’
associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection
process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).”
84. Equally, FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence
over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the
right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the
arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every
interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation
of the arbitrator list”.
85. Furthermore, it shall be highlighted that the minimum standards outlined in the FIFA RSTP
are also applicable to any appeal body established under the auspices of a member
association as a possible legal remedy against a decision rendered by a NDRC. Indeed, to
effectively guarantee the procedural rights of the parties, the minimum standards
outlined in the RSTP need to be complied with a both jurisdictional levels (first instance
Page 17
REF FPSD-5582
and appeal body established under the auspices of the member association, where the
latter is established).
86. Taking all the abovementioned into consideration, the DRC then examined the
documentation provided by the club together with its reply, namely the “Statutes of the
Qatar Sports Arbitration Foundation” and the “Arbitration Rules of Qatar Sports Arbitration
Tribunal”.
87. In this regard, we noted that, according to art. 38 of the “Statutes of Qatar Sports Arbitration
Foundation”, “in establishing the lists of arbitrators and mediators, the [Qatar Sports
Arbitration Foundation] Board shall take into consideration the principle of parity and equal
representation”. On this note, the DRC understood that the QSAF Board is responsible for
drawing up the list of arbitrators of the QSAT (both in the first instance and in the appeal
division). While the said article refers, in general terms, to the principle of parity and equal
representation, the DRC could not establish with certainty and to its comfortable
satisfaction that both groups of interest (representatives of players and of clubs) can
exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list.
88. The considerations above led the DRC to conclude that there is not enough evidence that
the QSAT respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
Furthermore, as indicated by the player, this conclusion is in line with previous analysis
of the DRC over the same matter and regulations (e.g. case ref. no. 20-00864).
89. Based on the above, the DRC decided that it has competence to adjudicate this matter on
the basis of art. 22, par. 1, lit. b) of the FIFA RSTP, and dismissed the allegations of the club
to the contrary.
90. 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 RSTP (July 2022 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged
on 25 March 2022, the March 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations)
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
91. 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).
Page 18
REF FPSD-5582
c. Merits of the dispute
92. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
93. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and noted that the case at hand pertains to a claim for outstanding remuneration
and compensation for breach of contract lodged by the player against the club.
94. The player claims that (i) the club failed to pay part of its outstanding remuneration for
the original 2019/2020 season; and (ii) following the COVID-19 outbreak, the employment
contract was extended until 25 August 2020 but was de facto terminated by the club on 8
July 2020 without just cause, making it liable to the consequences that follow.
95. The club, on the other hand, alleges that (i) it complied with all its financial duties under
the employment contract; and (ii) such employment contract was not validly extended,
hence expired on 30 June 2020 – therefore, it was not unilaterally terminated and there
is no room for a potential compensation.
96. In this context, the DRC acknowledged that its task was to determine the following:
a. Is the player entitled to any outstanding remuneration for the original 2019/2020
season (i.e. until 30 June 2020)?
b. Was the employment contract validly extended until 25 August 2020?
c. In the affirmative, was the employment contract terminated without just cause by
the club?
d. What are the consequences that follow?
97. The members of the Chamber proceeded then to analyse each matter in turn.
Page 19
REF FPSD-5582
A. Is the player entitled to any outstanding remuneration for the
original 2019/2020 season (i.e. until 30 June 2020)?
98. Initially, the DRC observed that it remained undisputed between the parties that the
player should be entitled to a total amount of EUR 261,521, corresponding to his
outstanding remuneration from the date of signature of the employment contract until
30 June 2020.
99. In accordance with the documentation on file: (i) on 21 July 2020 the club wired to the
player the exact amount of EUR 261,521 – as agreed between the parties; and (ii) also on
21 July 2020, the player acknowledged receipt of QAR 1,069,141.31.
100. In light of the above and as opposed to the player’s argumentation on this matter, the
DRC determined that the SWIFT confirmation on file was sufficient to establishing that the
club complied with its financial obligation. Furthermore, the Chamber considered that the
difference between the amount paid and the one allegedly received by the player
probably derived from the exchange tool and/or rate used for the calculations – especially
because the SWIFT and the banking statement on file are dated 21 July 2020 whereas the
player used the exchange rate of 22 July 2020.
101. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the player’s claim for outstanding
remuneration until 30 June 2020 should be rejected.
B. Was the employment contract validly extended until 25 August
2020?
102. Subsequently, the DRC turned to the core issue of the dispute: the definition as to
whether the employment contract was validly extended between the parties until the
postponed end of the 2019/2020 season (i.e. until 25 August 2020).
103. In this context and after a thorough analysis of the documentation of file, the Chamber
deemed it appropriate to highlight the following timeline, including the most relevant
events of this case:
Date
27 July 2019
11 March
2020
14 March
2020
8 April 2020
Event
Signature of the employment contract, valid until 30 June 2020
The player’s daughter was born in Uruguay
The sporting activities in Qatar were initially suspended due to the
COVID-19 outbreak
The club authorized the player to travelled to Uruguay from 11 until
21 April 2020. The club informed that the player’s salaries would be
suspended in case of delay in returning to Doha
Page 20
REF FPSD-5582
9 / 10 April
2020
28 April 2020
29 April 2020
5 May 2020
17 May 2020
18 May 2020
22 May 2020
27 May 2020
2 June 2020
9 June 2020
20 June 2020
22 June 2020
26 June 2020
29 June 2020
1 July 2020
2 July 2020
The player accepted the conditions of salary suspension offered by
the club and travelled to Uruguay
The club informed the player that his salaries would be suspended
insofar as he had not returned to Doha within the deadline stipulated
by the parties
The player requested information about the re-starting of training
and official matches
The player informed that he needed to stay longer in Uruguay
because of his daughter’s medical condition
The QFA announced that the domestic competitions would resume
as from 24 July until 26 August 2020
The club requested the player to be back in Doha by 23 May 2020 as
the trainings would resume 10 June 2020 and he needed to
quarantine for 14 days
The player informed that he could not travel back to Doha due to
COVID-19 restrictions on flying from Montevideo
The player informed that the airport was back to operation and
requested the flight tickets to be issued for his return to Doha
The club requested the player to return immediately to prepare for
the remaining matches. Furthermore, it expressly wrote as follows:
”[…] in regard to the salary beyond 30 June 2020, and considering the
remaining matches of the League will be played between 25 July until
25 August 2020, the Player will receive a pro rata salary based on his
current employment contract from 1 July 2020 until a day after the
last match”
The player inter alia requested the club to send him a written
agreement for the extension of the employment contract to the
remainder of the 2019/2020 season.
The club booked a hotel room for the player from 21 June until 7 July
2021 and the player travelled from Montevideo to Doha, with a
stopover in Istanbul
The player arrived in Doha, after having some administrative
problems in Istanbul – properly solved by the club
The player contacted the club to request a copy of the new schedule
to the employment contract, formalizing its extension
The club wrote to the player indicating – for the first time – that no
extension would be signed
The player attended a videoconference with the club where they
supposedly reached an agreement for the extension of the
employment contract
The player sent the club a letter referring to the financial conditions
pre-established between the parties the day before
Page 21
REF FPSD-5582
5 July 2020
7 July 2020
8 July 2020
July, August
and
September
2020
25 March
2022
The club denied having agreed with the extension of the employment
contract and issued a financial clearance establishing the contrary:
the natural expiry of the employment contract on 30 June 2020.
The player insisted on his position regarding the extension of the
employment contract.
The club confirmed that the employment contract was expired, and
no further action would be taken apart from the payment of the
outstanding remuneration as agreed upon by the parties.
The parties exchanged additional correspondences regarding
outstanding remuneration and dissented on the extension /
termination of the employment contract
The player lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration and breach
of contract before FIFA
104. Against this background, the members of the DRC first of all underlined that the
correspondence sent by the club on 2 June 2020 was pivotal for the assessment of the
case. In particular, they noted that, by means of such correspondence, the club clearly
and expressly manifested to the player its intention to extend the employment contract
until the end of the season, as well as formalized the financial conditions that would apply
thereon. As such, despite not having concluded a proper “schedule” and/or amendment,
the DRC concurred that this document alone could already induce the legitimate
expectation of the player that the extension would in fact be formally concluded.
105. Nonetheless, aside from the abovementioned written consent, the DRC considered that
the club’s decision to extend the employment contract was furthermore corroborated by
its own actions, namely: (i) requesting the player to immediately return to Doha after the
QFA’s announcement of the new schedule of the competition; (ii) granting the player the
requested authorizations to travel to Doha and solving his bureaucratic problems in
Istanbul; (iii) booking a hotel for the mandatory quarantine – which would in fact take
longer than the original term of the employment contract; and (iv) providing individual
training while the player was isolated in his hotel.
106. In light of the above, the DRC was of the opinion that the club adopted a controversial
behaviour, insofar as it firstly requested the player to resume his services until the official
end of the season and procured the necessary administrative steps for him to do so; and
subsequently withdrew its consent, hired a replacement, and denied having agreed upon
any extension of the contractual relationship after the player had already returned to
Doha.
107. The members of the Chamber then concluded that the conduct of the club was contrary
to the principle of estoppel or venire contra factum proprium. According to the CAS
jurisprudence, to which the DRC adheres: “[…] where the conduct of and/or assurances given
Page 22
REF FPSD-5582
by one party has induced legitimate expectations in another party, the first party is estopped
from suddenly changing its course of action and to act contrary to such assurances to the
detriment of the second party. Such doctrine amounts to a prohibition of inconsistent
behaviour” (cf. CAS 2008/A/1699, CAS 2017/A/5046, CAS 2017/O/5264, 5265 & 5266).
108. To this extent, the Chamber determined that: (i) the player could establish to comfortable
satisfaction degree that the parties de facto did mutually agree upon the extension of the
employment contract until the official end of the 2019/2020 season (cf. art. 13, par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules); and (ii) the club cannot benefit from its own tort by (later)
withdrawing its consent, therefore is estopped to change its course of action.
109. Consequently, the DRC decided that the club’s position on this matter should be rejected,
meaning that the employment contract shall be considered valid and binding to the
parties until 25 August 2020.
C. If affirmative, was the employment contract terminated
without just cause by the club?
110. As the parties dissented on the duration of the employment contract, the Chamber
observed that there was no explicit proof of termination on file. Nevertheless, it remained
undisputed that on 29 June 2020 and 8 July 2020, the club informed and confirmed that
no further schedule / amendment would be concluded with the player. Subsequently, he
was prevented to rendering services and returned to his home country (i.e. Uruguay).
111. In this context and bearing the previous understandings as to the extension of the
employment contract in mind, the DRC was firm to determine that by withdrawing its
consent the club implied that no further services would be required from the player. As
such, the Chamber concurred with the player’s position on this matter, and decided that
the employment contract was de facto terminated by the club on 8 July 2020.
112. Likewise, the DRC established that the termination took place without just cause as there
was not any evidence on file suggesting that the player was in breach of contract, let alone
that he motivated the termination as an ultima ratio measure. What is more – as opposed
to what was suggested by the club – the Chamber wished to outline that the COVID-19
outbreak could not be deemed as a valid reason for a premature termination of the
employment contract either (cf. the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the COVID
Guidelines).
113. All in all, the DRC decided that the employment contract was de facto terminated by the
club on 8 July 2020 without just cause.
D. What are the consequences that follow?
Page 23
REF FPSD-5582
114. 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.
115. In doing so, the Chamber initially stressed that – as previously assessed – there was no
outstanding remuneration at the time the employment contract was de facto terminated.
116. Therefore, the Chamber turned straightaway 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.
117. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of
which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by
the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract
at the basis of the matter at stake.
118. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
119. 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
employment contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date (i.e. the
duration of the extension until the end of the relevant season). Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 372,444.02 serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as
follows:
a. EUR 180,000 as the salary of July 2020;
b. EUR 150,967.74 as the pro rata salary of August 2020 (i.e. 26 days);
Page 24
REF FPSD-5582
c. EUR 5,557 as the housing and car allowances of July 2020;
d. EUR 4,660.71 as the pro rata housing and car allowances of August 2020 (i.e. 26 days);
e. EUR 28,977.39 as the pro rata paid leave; and
f.
EUR 2,281.17 as one flight ticket (i.e. EUR 13,687/6).
120. 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.
121. Indeed, the player remained unemployed during the overlapping period (i.e. after the
termination of the employment contract until 25 August 2020), hence was not able to
mitigate his damages. As a consequence, the Chamber also referred to art. 17, par. 1 lit.
i) of the Regulations together with its solid jurisprudence on the matter, and decided it
was not in a position to grant the player any additional compensation.
122. Consequently, 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 EUR 372,444.02 to the player, which was considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
123. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim (i.e. 25 March 2022) until
the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
124. 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.
125. 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
Page 25
REF FPSD-5582
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
126. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent
in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
127. 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.
128. 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.
d. Costs
129. 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.
130. 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.
131. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 26
REF FPSD-5582
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Abel Mathias Hernandez Platero, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Al Ahli SC, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 372,444.02 as
compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 March 2022 until the
date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant 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. 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. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration the ban
shall be of 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 article 24 par. 7 and 8 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 27
REF FPSD-5582
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 28