Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5595
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 September 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Morteza
Pouraliganji Mohammadjan
BY:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
Khalid Awad Al-Thebity (Saudi Arabia), member
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Morteza Pouraliganji Mohammadjan, IR Iran
Represented by Vissers Legal
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Shenzen FC, China
Represented by Roy Chu and Duan Ryan
INTERVENING PARTY:
FC Persepolis, IR Iran
Page 2
REF FPSD-5595
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 August 2020, the Iranian player, Morteza Pouraliganji Mohammadjan (hereinafter:
the Player), and the Chinese club, Shenzhen FC (hereinafter: the Club) signed an
employment contract valid as from 1 September 2020 until 30 June 2023 (hereinafter: the
employment contract).
2.
In accordance with art. 2 of the employment contract, the Club undertook to pay to the
Player inter alia the following sums:
I.
“From 1 September 2020 to 30 June 2021, the total salary of Party B shall be EUR
1,246,755 before tax in China, amounting to EUR 712,500 after tax in China. This
amount shall be divided into 10 (ten) equal monthly instalments. ie. EUR 75,000 per
month after tax
II.
From 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. the annual salary of Party B shall be EUR 1,587,664
before tax in China. amounting to EUR 900,000 after tax in China. The annual salary
shall be divided into 12 (twelve) equal monthly instalments during each contractual
year. i.e. EUR 75,000 per month after tax.
III.
From 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023, the annual salary of Party B shall be EUR 1,587,664
before tax in China. amounting to EUR 900,000 after tax in China. The annual salary
shall be divided into 12 (twelve) equal monthly ins/aliments during each contractual
year. i.e. EUR 75,000 per month after tax.
IV.
The work first and pay later system is adopted. i.e. the salary of each month will be paid
on the 15th Day of the next month. To be specific, the first salary for September 2020
shall be paid on or before 15 October 2020 and the last salary for June 2023 shall be
paid on or before 15 July 2023.
V.
In addition to the aforementioned salary, Party A will pay bonuses to Party B as follows
during the terms:
EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros) after tax (which shall be EUR 54,545 pre-tax in
China) as win-game bonus for each Chinese Super League (CSU win match in which
Party B had fielded(played) for at least 60 minutes or starts in the first 11 line up. The
payment time of the above bonus shall be according to the bonus distribution policy of
Party A. which shall be decided by the Party A at its own discretion.”
3.
Furthermore, art. 8 of the employment contract established the following:
Page 3
REF FPSD-5595
I.
“ In case any of the Parties terminates the Contract without just cause, the breaching
Party shall compensate the other Party an amount equals to 50% (fifty percent) of the
remaining salary of this Contract.
II.
Parties expressly confirm their total understanding and acceptance of this Article 8, as
well as they confirm that this Article is totally fair and proportional.”
4.
In addition to the employment contract, the Player concluded an Image Rights License
Contract”(hereinafter: the license agreement) with Kaisa Group Holdings Ltd. (hereinafter:
Kaisa). Kaisa is a company headquartered in the Cayman Islands and constituted in
accordance with Cayman Law.
5.
Pursuant to the license agreement, Kaisa and the Player stipulated the following financial
terms:
“Article 3: The Image Right Fee
3.1.
In consideration to the current commercial value of the Image Rights of Party B. the total Image
Rights Fee is EUR 1,800,000 Euros after tax within the entire contractual period.
3.2.
This amount shall be paid as follows.
3.2.1.
The year of 2020: EUR 200,000 after tax shall be paid on or before 30 October 2020.
3.2.2.
The year of 2021: EUR 700,000 after tax shall be divided into 4 equal instalments on or before
March 31. June 30, September 30 and December 31, ie. EUR 175,000 after tax per time.
32.3.
The year of 2022: EUR 700,000 after tax shall be divided into 4 equal instalments on or before
March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31. ie. EUR 175,000 after tax per time.
3.2,4.
The year of 2023: EUR 200.000 after tax shall be paid on or before 31 March 2020.”
6.
Furthermore, clause 6.5 of the license agreement established that “All disputes arising from
or related to the present Contract shall be settled via amicable negotiation by the Parties, and
in case of failure to settle the matter, the Parties shall submit the dispute to the Hong Kong
International Arbitration Centre. The Language of the arbitration shall be English.”
Page 4
REF FPSD-5595
7.
On 20 October 2021, the Player sent a letter to the Club stating that the last 3 monthly
salaries had remained unpaid by the latter.
8.
By correspondence dated 24 November 2021, the Player put the Club in default of
payment of EUR 545,000, contextually granting the latter a term of 15 days in order to
remedy the default.
9.
On 15 December 2021, the Player sent a letter to the Club notifying the unilateral
termination of the employment contract due to overdue payables by the Club amounting
to EUR 430,512.
10. On 31 January 2022, the Player offered the Club to settle the ongoing dispute by paying
EUR 430,512 as outstanding remuneration plus 80% of the residual value of the
employment contract as compensation, i.e. EUR 2,344,409.60.
11. Subsequently, during the month of February 2022, the Club and the Player exchanged
correspondences with the apparent purpose of finding a financial settlement.
12. As from 25 May 2022 and until the end of the sporting season 2023/2024 (i.e. 31 July 2024),
the Player concluded an employment agreement with the Iranian club, FC Persepolis
(hereinafter: the Intervening Party.)
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 28 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. Position of the Player
14. According to the Player, the Club failed to comply with its financial obligations deriving
both from the employment contract and the license agreement.
15. In particular, the Player sustained that in spite of being not signed by the Club, the license
agreement was part of the labour relationship established by the parties with the
employment contract dated 1 August 2020.
16. In this context, the Player held that Kaisa is in fact the parent company of the Club, hence
both the employment contract and the license agreement shall be meant to be signed by
the same entity.
17. In support of his allegations, the Player highlighted that
•
The license agreement had the same duration of the employment contract.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5595
•
•
The license agreement ended automatically when the employment contract was
terminated by the Player.
The validity of the license agreement was subject to the successful transfer of the
Player to the Club.
18. Lastly, before presenting his requests for relief, the Player acknowledged having received
a payment by the Club of EUR 114,488 in December 2021.
19. The requests for relief of the Player, accordingly, were the following:
“42. In light of the aforementioned, Morteza requests primarily that the Dispute Resolution
Chamber rules and declares that Shenzhen FC has breached the Contracts and obliges
Shenzhen FC to pay the Player the total outstanding amount of € 554,114.40 including legal
interest and extrajudicial costs, to Morteza, within five (5) days following the day of the
Dispute Resolution Chambers judgement. and further;
43. Secondarily, Morteza requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber to recognize and validate
the termination of the Contract and License Contract with just cause for outstanding salaries
in accordance with Article 14bis(1) RSTP and oblige Shenzhen FC to pay compensation for
the breach of contract. Lacking a contractual provisions to determine such compensation,
the Player requests that the compensation is to be calculated in accordance with Article
17(1) RSTP. and further;
44. Morteza furthermore requests that the Dispute Resolution Chamber rules and
determines that Shenzhen FC is obliged to pay the costs of these current proceedings, being
the costs of the Dispute Resolution Chamber procedure, the costs of Morteza’s Attorney at
law and all other costs and payments that have been paid by Morteza for the purpose of
starting this procedure, to be determined by the Dispute Resolution Chamber;
45. Alternatively, and only in case the Dispute Resolution Chamber rules that it cannot
establish jurisdiction over the License Contract. Morteza requests the Chamber to rule that
Shenzhen FC has breached the Contract and obliges Shenzhen FC to pay the Player the total
outstanding amounts due under the Contract existing of the outstanding salaries.
uncompensated medical costs. unpaid match bonus, legal interest and extra judicial costs
minus the payment made by the Club in December 2021;
46. Moreover, in case the Dispute Resolution Chamber were to rule that it has no jurisdiction
over the License Contract. Morteza requests the Chamber to recognize and validate the
termination of the Contract with just cause for outstanding salaries in accordance with
Article 14bis RSTP and oblige Shenzhen FC to pay compensation for the breach of contract.
Lacking a contractual provision to determine such compensation. the Player requests that
the compensation is to be calculated in accordance with Article 17(1) RSTP;
Page 6
REF FPSD-5595
47. Morteza furthermore requests in that case that the Dispute Resolution Chamber rules
and determines that Shenzhen FC is obliged to pay the costs of these current proceedings,
being the costs of the Dispute Resolution Chamber procedure, the costs of Morteza’s
Attorney at law and all other costs and payments that have been paid by Morteza for the
purpose of starting this procedure, to be determined by the Dispute Resolution Chamber.”
b. Position of the Club and counterclaim
20. According to the Club, first of all, the license agreement shall be disregarded by FIFA as
the latter does not have jurisdiction to entertain it.
21. In this respect, the Club referred to the license agreement as a separate contract
regulating the Player’s image rights with a third-party entity and noted the following:
•
The Club is not a party of the license agreement. The license agreement is entered
between the Player and Kaisa, which is a company located in the Cayman Islands.
•
The license agreement does not contain any provision or content which may be
expected to be included in the Player’s employment contract (e.g., signing-on fees,
bonuses, accommodation, benefits, etc.).
•
The fees under the license agreement are much lower than the remuneration under
the employment contract.
•
The license agreement contains a valid and binding arbitration agreement in favour
of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.
•
The specimen of the license agreement provided by the Player was not signed by any
party, hence it shall have not validity.
22. In continuation, with regard to the amounts of the employment contract allegedly
outstanding at the moment of the termination by the Player, the Club argued that as per
article 2.5 of the employment contract, bonuses were to be paid according to the internal
policies of the club only. Therefore, in the Club’s view, the Player could not claim any
breach regarding the alleged due bonuses at that time.
23. Thirdly, with regard to the medical expenses included by the Player in his requests for
relief, the Club objected to the lack of evidence of the costs allegedly incurred by the
Player, hence these shall be disregarded.
24. Finally, with regard to the outstanding salaries, contrary to what alleged by the Player, the
Club stated that the Player received almost EUR 1,000,000 net, plus bonuses and further
benefits between September 2020 and 15 December 2021, which would correspond to
about 95% of the Player financial entitlement at the time.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5595
25. In particular, the Club declared that at the moment of the termination the total overdue
was EUR 56,395 only, i.e. less than one monthly salary, as the Club had duly paid all
salaries until August 2021 and then it paid further EUR 93,605 within 7 December 2021,
thus before the 15-days deadline granted in the default notice.
26. Consequently, in the Club’s view, the Player terminated the employment contract without
just cause since the outstanding amounts corresponded to less than one-month salary.
27. Accordingly, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player for breach of contract
without just cause and demanded to be paid a compensation by the latter in accordance
with art. 8 of the employment contract, i.e. 50% of the residual salary of the Player,
corresponding to EUR 750,000 net.
c. Reply of the Player to the counterclaim
28. In his replica, the Player objected to the thesis of the Club according to which the license
agreement would not constitute part of the employment relationship.
29. In this context, the Player insisted that, the license agreement is de facto an integral part
of the employment contract and that indeed both agreements are to such an extent
interconnected that the licence agreement has to be considered as subsidiary to the
employment contract.
30. Moreover, with regard to the role of Kaisa, the Player underlined that the e-mail addresses
used by some officials of the Club adopt the domain “@kaisagroup.com”.
31. Beside the above, the Player argued that from the wording of the internal exchange of
emails occurred between the parties in February 2022 it results evident the Club’s
acknowledgement of the fees due under the license agreement as part of the outstanding
remuneration.
32. Similarly, the Player held that also the bonus claimed in accordance with art. 2 of the
employment contract had been expressly recognized by the Club in the aforementioned
emails as outstanding.
33. In conclusion, the Player stated that the Club failed to meet its burden of proof, in
particular with regard to the existence of overdue payables amounting to more than 2
monthly salaries at the moment of the termination, which on the contrary the same Club
would have acknowledged in the subsequent exchange of emails between the parties.
34. Furthermore, with regard to the criteria to be adopted for the calculation of the
compensation for breach of contract without just cause by the Club, the Player sustained
Page 8
REF FPSD-5595
that art. 8 of the employment contract is not applicable to the case at stake, namely
because this would only apply to the situation in which a party terminates the
employment contract without just cause.
d. Club’s final comments
35. In its final comments, the Club argued that the emails exchanged between the parties
shall be deemed as inadmissible, namely as they have an internal and confidential nature.
36. In this respect, the Club argued that these refer to private conversations between lawyers
which are confidential and without prejudice and cannot be used in court.
37. Finally, the Club insisted on the fact that at the time of the termination the sums
outstanding in favour of the Player were amounting to less than one month salary, hence
he did not have just cause to terminate the employment contract and he shall pay
compensation for the breach.
e. Position of the Intervening Party
38. The Intervening Party did not submit its response to the counterclaim, in spite of having
been invited to do so.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
39. 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 28 March 2022 and submitted
for decision on 29 September 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.
40. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit.
b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022), 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
Iranian player and a Chinese club.
41. At this point and after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the DRC
highlighted that its competence to adjudicate over the employment contract was not
Page 9
REF FPSD-5595
opposed by the Club, hence it was tacitly accepted, insofar as the Club only challenged
the jurisdiction of FIFA as it pertains to the license agreement.
42. In particular, the Chamber observed that the Club argued that the license agreement was
completely independent from the employment contract, namely as the signing parties
are different as well as its purpose. Furthermore, the Club referred to the jurisdiction
clause contained in the license agreement and concluded that the DRC does not have
jurisdiction to adjudicate on this part of the matter. The Club equally argued that the
specimen of the license agreement is not signed by the parties thereto and therefore it
cannot be considered.
43. On the other hand, the DRC was also observant of the Player’s argumentation as to the
admissibility of the claim, especially regarding the alleged employment-related nature of
the license agreement.
44. In particular, the Chamber recalled the Player’s argument according to which, in spite of
being not signed by the Club, the license agreement shall be read as part of the same
employment relationship because Kaisa is a parent company of the Club and its validity
had been de facto acknowledged by the Club in the emails exchanged by the parties.
45. In this context, the DRC wished to remark that it was the Player’s burden to prove the
alleged connection between the employment contract and license agreement, hence he
had to present sufficient evidence to a comfortable degree of the DRC.
46. However, the DRC firstly observed that the document in question, although its validity
had been acknowledged by both parties during their negotiations, presented no
signatures, hence it was not possible to determine that the license agreement had been
in fact concluded by the same parties as those listed in the employment contract.
47. Secondly, the Chamber noted that in the license agreement there are no direct references
to the employment contract, but rather several provisions regarding payable amounts
which differ from those typically due in connection with an employment relationship and,
not less relevant, a clear jurisdiction clause in favour of the Hong Kong Arbitration Center.
48. In this respect, the DRC was of the opinion that the Player failed to prove to the
comfortable satisfaction of the Chamber that the license agreement is indeed a part of
the employment relationship, hence this shall be deemed as a separate agreement from
the employment contract, upon which the DRC has no jurisdiction over.
49. In view of the above, the DRC unanimously concluded that it was not competent to
entertain the player’s claims insofar as they referred to the license agreement.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5595
50. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 28 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
51. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by
or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
52. 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
53. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the quantum of the
outstanding sums and accordingly whether its consistency would allow the Player to
terminate the employment contract with just cause on 15 December 2021.
54. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to first ascertain which
amounts, if any, were effectively outstanding at the moment in which the Player
terminated the employment contract.
55. In this respect, the DRC observed from the documentation in its possession and in
particular from the emails exchanged by the parties in February 2022, that at the time of
the termination of the employment contract the Club acknowledged the existence of
overdue payables towards the Player amounting to at least two salaries, namely those
due for the months of September and October 2021, plus a bonus of EUR 30,000.
56. The Chamber consequently referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations,
in accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly
Page 11
REF FPSD-5595
salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate
his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted
a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial
obligation(s).
57. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Player has provided written evidence of having
put the Respondent in default on 24 November 2021, i.e. at least 15 days before
unilaterally terminating the contract on 15 December 2021.
58. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the Player had just cause to unilaterally
terminate the employment contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations. It follows that
the counterclaim of the Club shall be entirely rejected.
ii. Consequences
59. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
60. The Chamber observed that the outstanding salaries at the time of termination, coupled
with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 4 months under the
contract, amounting to EUR 300,000.
61. In this context, the DRC recalled that the Player acknowledged having received a total of
EUR 114,488 by December 2021, hence the Chamber concluded that said sum shall be
deducted from the outstanding salaries.
62. Furthermore, the DRC assessed that pursuant to the employment contract the Player
would also be entitled to a bonus of EUR 30,000 for his participation in a match won by
the Club on 27 July 2021 which was not contested by the Club, hence the said amount
shall be included in the list of the overdue payables.
63. Conversely, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player failed to provide any evidence
of the medical expenses he had allegedly incurred, whereas the employment contract did
not foresee any specific sum to be paid in this regard.
64. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Club proved to have already paid the Player’s
medical expenses insofar these were justified by the relevant invoices produced by the
Player in the past, thus any further request from the Player cannot be welcomed.
65. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the deduction of RMB 310,000 (i.e., EUR
43,040) alleged by the Club as corresponding to 50% of the subsidies received by the
Player in December 2021, does not find any legal basis in the employment contract, and
neither of the parties was able to provide a concrete background in order to allow a
Page 12
REF FPSD-5595
proper understanding of the origin of the claimed concept. Hence, the DRC established
that the said request for deduction shall be rejected.
66. Similarly, the Chamber wished to remark that the Club failed to corroborate its thesis
according to which the amounts of EUR 4,142 and EUR 7,535 shall be deducted from the
outstanding remuneration because respectively paid in excess of the outstanding
bonuses and medical expenses.
67. The DRC noted that during its last correspondence with the Player in February 2022, the
Club did not object that the mentioned surpluses were to be deducted from the
outstanding sums, hence they shall be disregarded as well.
68. As a consequence of all the above considerations, and in accordance with the general
legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay
to the Player the amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of
the termination, i.e., EUR 215,512, calculated as follows: EUR 75,000 x 4 – EUR 114,488 +
EUR 30,000.
69. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s generic and unspecific request with
regards to interest as well as the constant practice of the Chamber in this regard, the
latter decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding
amounts as from the date of claim until the date of effective payment.
70. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise
provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law
of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including
in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
71. 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
took note of the wording of art. 8 of the contract, which established that “In case any of
the Parties terminates the Contract without just cause, the breaching Party shall compensate
the other Party an amount equals to 50% (fifty percent) of the remaining salary of this
Contract.”
Page 13
REF FPSD-5595
72. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that it
fulfilled the criteria of reciprocity and proportionality, in line with the Chamber’s
longstanding jurisprudence, and therefore was to be applied in the case at hand to
determine the amount of compensation payable by the Club to the Player.
73. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the amount of EUR 712,500 (i.e. 50% of the
residual value of the employment contract), is due to the Player by the Club, as per the
compensation clause agreed between the parties in the employment contract.
74. 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., 28 March 2022, until
the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
75. 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.
76. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
77. 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
78. 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.
79. 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.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5595
d. Costs
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5595
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Morteza Pouraliganji Mohammadjan, is
partially accepted insofar it is admissible.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Shenzhen FC, has to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, the following amounts:
EUR 185,512 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 March
2022 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 30,000 net as outstanding bonus plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 March 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
EUR 712,500 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 28 March 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is 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/Counter-Claimant 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.
Page 16
REF FPSD-5595
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent 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 17
REF FPSD-5595
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 18