Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13845
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player David
Mateos Ramajo
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), Member
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY (Russia), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
David Mateos Ramajo, Spain
Represented by Uno-One Legal Partners
RESPONDENT / COUNTERCLAIMANT:
Guangxi Pingguo Haliao Football Club, China PR
Represented by MUÑOZ Y ARIAS SPORTS LAWYERS S.L.
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13845
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 January 2022, the Spanish player David Mateos Ramajo (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the Chinese club Guangxi Pingguo Haliao Football Club
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent / Counterclaimant) entered into an employment
contract (hereinafter: the Contract) initially valid as from the date of signing until 31
December 2023, with the possibility of extension for an additional season (i.e., until the end
of 2024).
2.
Article 3 of the Contract provided, inter alia, the following in relation to the Player’s
remuneration, quoted verbatim:
“ARTICLE 3: Salary and Bonuses
1. The Parties agree to calculate the salary on an annual basis. During the term of this
Contract, [the Club] shall pay [the Player] the annual salaries as follows (the Parties may
agree on currency unit):
1) The first calendar year
RMB 1.392.864 before tax, that is $ 214287 before tax (in words: USD two hundred and
fourteen thousand, two hundred and eighty-seven ) (if The exchange rate is calculated at
US $1, which is equal to RMB 6.50, however, the final amount shall be subject to the
exchange rate on the day of [the Club's] remittance) from 1st/January/2022
(day/month/year) until 31s December 2022 before tax, which shall amount to RMB 97500
after tax.that is USD 150000 after tax (if The exchange rate is calculated at US $1, which
is equal to RMB 6.50,however, the final amount shall be subject to the exchange rate on
the day of [the Club's] remittance)
[The Player’s] salary is RMB 116.072 per month before tax, that is USD 17857 per month
before tax (if The exchange rate is calculated at US $1. which is equal to RMB 6.50,
however, the final amount shall be subject to the exchange rate on the day of [the Club]’s
remittance), RMB 81,250 per month after tax, that is USD12500 per month (if The
exchange rate is calculated at US $1, which is equal to RMB 6.50, however, the final
amount shall be subject to the exchange rate on the day of [the Club’s] remittance)
* lf [the Club] pays in RMB, it shall be paid at the exchange rate of that day.
2) The second calendar year
RMB 1.392,864 before tax, that is $ 214287 before tax (in words: USD two hundred and
fourteen thousand, two hundred and eighty-seven) (if The exchange rate is calculated at
US $1, which is equal to RMB 6.50,however, the final amount shall be subject to the
exchange rate on the day of [the Club's] remittance) from 1st/January/2023
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13845
(day/month/year) until 31st/December/2023 before tax, which shall amount to RMB
97500 after tax, that is USD 150000 after tax (if The exchange rate is calculated at US $1,
which is equal to RMB 6.50, however, the final amount shall be subject to the exchange
rate on the day of [the Club's] remittance).
[The Player’s] salary is RMB 116,072 per month before tax, that is USD 17857 per month
before tax (if The exchange rate is calculated at US $1, which is equal to RMB 6.50,
however, the final amount shall be subject to the exchange rate on the day of [the Club]’s
remittance), RMB 81,250 per month after tax, that is USD 12500 per month (if The
exchange rate is calculated at US $1, which is equal to RMB 6.50, however, the final
amount shall be subject to the exchange rate on the day of [the Club's] remittance)
* lf [the Club] pays in RMB, it shall be paid at the exchange rate of that day.
2. The annual salaries shall be paid to [the Player] in equal monthly installments. [The
Club] shall pay the salary (choose one of the following two options) for the □ last month
/ □ current month on the (______) day of every month. In the event the above-mentioned
payment due date falls on a statutory holiday, the payment due date shall be extended
to the first working day following the holiday.
Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the method of calculating the average daily salary
is as follows: the amount of monthly salary divided by the number of calendar days in
the month.
3. In addition to the salary stipulated in the paragraph 1 of this Article, [the Club] has
the right to determine whether to pay bonuses to [the Player] depending on the
circumstance. The amount as well as the payment method of the bonuses shall be
determined according to the relevant bonus distribution plan of [the Club]. [The Club]
shall have the right to make the final decision on the amount and payment method of
the bonuses. At the same time, the total amount of bonuses (before tax) paid by [the
Club] shall not exceed the maximum amount of bonus stipulated by regulations of
Chinese Football Association (‘CFA’) and/or the relevant League Management Council
(hereinafter referred to as: ’LMC’).
In addition to the foregoing, during the period of validity of the contract, [the Player] shall
be entitled to the following individual and first team performance bonuses:
The winning bonus is 2000 USD per game.
If the first team promotes to the Chinese Super League, the bonus is 75000 USD after tax.
(The exchange rate is calculated at US $1, which is equal to RMB 6.50).
4. [The Club] shall pay the aforementioned salaries, bonuses (if any) and/or any other
amounts that [the Club] shall pay to [the Player] under this Contract via wire transfer to
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13845
the following bank account as designated by [the Player]. Upon the completion of such
wire transfer, [the Club] shall be deemed to have performed and fulfilled its payment
obligation under this Contract. All the commission fee charged by the bank for the
payment from [the Club] to [the Player] shall be borne by [the Club], and all fees incurred
by [the Player] for receipt of all payments from [the Club] shall be borne by [the Player]:
[…]
5. Before-tax amounts under this Contract refer to amounts including all taxes and fees
that [the Player] shall pay arising from the income obtained from [the Club]. Before [the
Player] pays [the Club] each installment of the amounts agreed under this Contract, [the
Club] shall be responsible for the withholding and payment of income tax due from [the
Player] in Mainland China from the before-tax amount payable to [the Player] in
accordance with the relevant laws and regulations of the People's Republic of China
(hereinafter referred to as ‘China’). Any taxes, expenses, levies, etc. that might be
originated in any country or region outside of Mainland China shall be exclusively
declared, paid and borne by [the Player].
6. The Parties understand and agrees that the after-tax amounts under this Contract
refer to amounts after deducting the taxes to be paid in Mainland China and such
amounts are stipulated just for reference. The after-tax amount that [the Player] actually
receives shall be the amount net of taxes to be paid in Mainland China.”
3.
Article 4 of the Contract established that the Player would be entitled to, inter alia, the
following benefits, quoted verbatim:
“ARTICLE 4: Allowances, holidays and other working conditions
[…]
5. [The Club] shall provide [the Player] with (1) round-trip flight ticket from China to Spain
(country of nationality of [the Player]) for each contractual year (every 12 months from
the signing date of this Contract constitutes a contractual year). And the total amount of
business class flight tickets up to 5. The above-mentioned flight tickets are provided on a
contractual year basis only and thus will not be cumulative upon the entire duration of
this Contract (i.e. no additional tickets will be provided in the new contractual year in the
event [the Player] does not use all of the airline tickets provided during the previous
contractual year, and the unused tickets shall be deemed automatically void, nor shall
[the Player] be compensated in any form as a substitute compensation for the unused
airline tickets.). The Parties agree that the flight tickets can only be used by [the Player],
[the Player’s] spouse and children.
[…]
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13845
10. [The Club] is responsible for obtaining the necessary visa and working permit for [the
Player]. [The Player] shall provide necessary assistance to [the Club], including but not
limited to: providing all the documents and information required by the relevant
government authorities in time.”
4.
Article 9 of the Contract provided, inter alia, the following in relation to the automatic
renewal of the Contract and its premature termination, quoted verbatim:
“ARTICLE 9. Termination of the Contract
[…]
5. [The Club] has the right to terminate this Contract by notifying [the Player] in writing
and claim against [the Player] for default liability if any of the following events occurs:
[…]
5.6. If [the Club] gets relegated to the third division, both parties agree this Agreement
and the "Employment Contract For Professional Football Player" shall be terminated
automatically.
5.7. If [the Player’s] TMS process cannot be finished and fails to get the ITC, both parties
agree this Agreement and the ‘Employment Contract For Professional Football Player’
shall be automatically terminated, and the parties have no liability for compensation
5.8. If [the Player] plays 60% of the first League in 2023, it will automatically renew the
contract for one year and a one-time reward of $50,000 will be given to [the Player] at
the end of 2023. and the salary in 2024 is same as 2023; lf the team enter into the
Chinese super league in 2024, and [the Player] plays 50% in the team in 2024, a onetime reward of $100,000 will be given to [the Player] before 31st December 2024. If [the
Player] plays 50% of the first League in 2024, a one-time reward of $50,000 will be
given to [the Player] in the end of 2024.
5.9. The both parties agree that this employment contract shall be invalid until [the
Player’s] ITC is sent to Chinese Football Association and recognized by Chinese Football
Association, and as well as [the Player] shall pass through the medical examinations
designated by [the Club].
6. [The Player] has the right to terminate this Contract by notifying [the Club] in writing if
any of the following events occurs:
6.1 [The Club] fails to pay salary to [the Player] for more than two (2) months and fails
to remedy such default within 15 (fifteen) days upon receipt of [the Player’s] written
notification.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13845
5.
On 15 March 2023, the Player and the Club entered into a settlement agreement by means
of which the Club acknowledged that it owed the Player USD 15,440 net in salary to that
date. The parties agreed that the debt would be paid in one instalment payable by 22 April
2023.
6.
On 13 April 2023, the Player travelled to China to join the Club for the 2023 season. The
plane tickets were issued by the Club.
7.
Between April and November 2023, the Player played in 26 out of the 30 official matches
valid for the China League One – 2023, the first match being on 22 April 2023 and the last
two being on 28 October 2023 (fielded) and on 5 November 2023 (on the bench).
8.
In parallel, on 25 September 2023, the Player sent a message via the application WeChat
to the Club’s president (hereinafter: the President), asking for improvements to his Contract
for the following seasons. The Player claimed that he would not stay at the Club if his salary
was the same as in the 2023 season.
9.
On 8 October 2023, the Player again contacted the President via WeChat insisting that he
deserved an increase in salary for the coming season due to his outstanding performance.
It should be noted that the Club provided transcripts of the conversations the Player had
with Club representatives around that date, in which the Player seemed to ask for an
increase in salary and refer to alternative career paths in the negative.
10. Between 23 and 26 October 2023, the Player asked the Club (through the President)
whether he would receive a new contract for the season. The President replied that any
contractual arrangement would have to be negotiated with the Player’s agent.
11. On 31 October 2023, the Player contacted the President and proposed new terms for his
contract for the 2024 season, including the desired increase in salary.
12. On 24 November 2023, the Player and the President exchanged the following messages,
quoted verbatim:
[Player]: I need to do the visa for 2024
[President]: What materials are needed?
[Player]: Wait for embassy of china to reply me to my email and will tell you
When the team will start trainings?
[President]: At the end of December
13. On an unspecified date, but after the end of the 2023 season in China, the Player travelled
to Spain on holiday.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13845
14. On 1 December 2023, the Club paid the Player’s salary for September and October 2023.
15. On 6 December 2023, the Club sent a letter to the Player requesting that he return to its
premises before 15 December 2023 to begin preparations for the 2024 season.
16. On the same day, the Player replied to the Club requesting a business class flight ticket
from Madrid (Spain) to China PR.
17. On 7 December 2023, the Club stated that it had already paid for all plane tickets under
the Contract for the 2023 season. The Club provided a copy of the previous bookings and
claimed that the Player should purchase his own return ticket.
18. On 10 December 2023, the Player wrote the following message to the President via WeChat,
quoted verbatim:
“Hello, Mr. Liang, I still want to say something to you in person. In my opinion, legally,
there is still a contract between us, and although you have informed my agent that there
is no need for me to come back, everything has to be clarified and sorted out in light of
the problems I will face before returning home,
1. If I come back now, that is, the club is fully prepared to settle all unpaid wages and
bonuses? Of course, I only say that if the club wants to release me from my contract,
after all, my return has to be meaningful,
2. If the club only wants me to train with the team on the 15th, then according to my
understanding, the main intention of the club is to want me to stay, but the current
situation of the club is that the entire training facilities and venues are being updated,
and the Spanish coaching staff will not return to China on the 15th, in my opinion, such
training efficiency will be very low and will not be of practical help to me. In Spain, all
aspects of the training conditions of the Real Madrid base are guaranteed, and I have
my personal fitness coach to protect me, and these details fully show that I will be able
to maintain a good physical condition to meet the challenges of the next season.
3. Finally, I would like to say that Christmas in Spain is just like the Lunar New Year, it is
very important for me to get the whole family together. Therefore, I hope I can return to
China after Christmas. I hope you can understand and help me. Thank you very much
for your continued support and concern!”
19. On 10 and 11 December 2023, the President and the Player exchanged the following
messages, quoted verbatim:
[President]: The follow-up salary can be paid next month. If you come back next month,
you need to apply for the visa first. You can come back after Christmas and get the visa
and wait for the notice.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13845
[Player]: Why do you talk about the visa issue? I can also apply for a visa in Spain,
because now COVID-19 will not affect anything... It can be done in a week.
[President]: Then you also have to complete a visa in Spain to come your visa expires
this month.
[Player]: If it is due to visa issues, don't worry, I can handle it just fine, don't worry, then
ask me to return the file before the 15th, you can abolish it with a letter with the club
seal, and will arrive in China with a valid visa.
The reason I want this letter is that you said I could spend Christmas at home, but if you
say you don't need to resend the letter and you tell me to stay home, there's no way to
stay... Because your present letter is asking me to return on the 15th...”
20. On 12 December 2023, the Player reiterated his request that the Club allow him to stay
longer in Spain and spend Christmas with his family.
21. On the same date, the Club issued a “Letter of Notice”, authorizing the Player to return to
China only in January 2024. The Club stated that “the specific return time will be notified by
letter from the club”.
22. Still in December 2023, the Player and the President exchanged messages via WeChat
regarding the Player’s return date and ticket. The Player proposed to return on 10 January
2024 and the President asked him to wait for further confirmation.
23. On 31 December 2023, the Player’s residence permit in China expired.
24. On 4 January 2024, the first registration period in China began. According to the
information provided by the Club and confirmed in FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS),
it was scheduled to end on 28 February 2024. The first official match of the Club was
scheduled for 9 March 2024.
25. On 5 January 2024, the Player contacted the President and stated the following, quoted
verbatim:
[Player]: Hello I see that you have signed 3 foreign players, plus me 4, so according to
my understanding you do not want me to stay, But I have a contract with Guangxi so I
want to know what you think about me for 2024,I know you don't want me but nobody
has told me in writing that you don't want me back at the club.
26. In response, the President asked the Player whether he had spoken to his agent. The
President further stated that they would assist the Player in finding a new employer.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13845
27. Between 5 and 19 January 2024, the Player sent several messages to the President
concerning, inter alia, his outstanding remuneration, his return ticket and possible
settlements for a premature termination and/or loan to another club.
28. In parallel, allegedly on 10 January 2024, the President, the Club’s translator and the Player
allegedly participated in a voice conference, the content of which was recorded by the
Player. It should be noted that the Player submitted a recording of this meeting, as well as
a transcription. However, the Club disputed the admissibility of the evidence and the
accuracy – as there was no proof of the persons involved and the date that the conference
effectively happened.
29. On 18 January 2024, the Player also posted a video on the Weibo platform regarding his
contractual situation. For ease of reference, the Player stated, quoted verbatim:
“Hello everyone, today is the 1.18th. My team Guangxi has started winter training in
December. As the captain in the past two years, I have also participated in many games,
including continuing to maintain the contract with Guangxi this year. Recently, I have
received a lot of private messages from fans asking why I did not participate in club
training. I want to say that it was because the club unilaterally abandoned me and did
not issue the required visa documents for me There was no reply to any of my emails. I
know that Guangxi is a team that wants to surpass the Super League this year, but such
a team has not settled its salary for 2023. It is still in arrears for two months of salary
from November to December, as well as personal bonuses. Not only me, but also mine,
teammates. Yesterday l saw that Guangxi did not appear on the second batch of arrears
list and can continue to appear in the 2024 season. For this, I want to know how the
Chinese Football Association allows it? At the same time, I also hope that the Football
Association will lend a helping hand, because I have spent nearly a month on this matter
to get a visa to return to China. I hope that the club will buy my return ticket as soon as
possible so that I can return to the team as soon as possible and continue to fulfil my
contract.”
30. On 20 January 2024, the Player informed the President of a loan offer from the Spanish
club, Club Deportivo Colonia Moscardo. The Player explained the financial conditions and
proposed a settlement of his overdue debts. The President, on the other hand, stressed
that the Club could not loan him in accordance with the Chinese regulations.
31. On 22 January 2024, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club, in which he (i) demanded
payment of his outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 105,965.46 net plus RMB
3,000 net, broken down as follows, quoted verbatim:
“- 19.677,26 RMB which is equivalent to USD 2,721.61 NET (two thousand seven hundred
twenty-one US dollars and sixty-one cents) unpaid amount of the September 2023 salary.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13845
- 1.785 RMB which is equivalent to USD 243.85 NET (two hundred forty-three US dollars
and eighty-five cents) unpaid amount of the October 2023 salary.
- 3.000 RMB NET team bonus.
- USD 50,000 NET (fifty thousand US dollars) bonus for contract extension cf. clause 9.5
(8).
- USD 28,000 NET (twenty-eight thousand US dollars) victory bonus cf. clause 3.3.
- USD 12.500 NET (twelve thousand five hundred US dollars) salary for November 2023.
- USD 12.500 NET (twelve thousand five hundred US dollars) salary for December 2023.”
32. In addition, the Player drew the Club’s attention to the fact that his visa had expired on 31
December 2023 and that he had not been provided with a plane ticket to return to China.
The Player demanded that the Club pay him the debt and provide him with the visa / work
permit, plane ticket and proof of registration within 15 days.
33. On 5 February 2024, the Club paid the following sums to the Player:
Reference (sic)
Amount (RMB)
Equivalent to USD*
“November 2023 salary”
89,515
12,450.60
“December 2023 salary”
88,462.50
12,304.20
“The 2023 bonus”
56,738.92
7,891.76
TOTAL
234,716.42
32,646.56
* Exchange rate at the date of payment, according to OANDA.
34. On 6 February 2024, the Player sent a second notice of default to the Club, acknowledging
receipt of the partial payment and granting the Club a further 15 days to pay the balance
of USD 79,965.46 net and RMB 3,000 net, and to provide him with proof of registration, a
copy of his visa and a confirmed return flight ticket to China. The Player also added that the
Club’s continued breach would entitle him to terminate the Contract for just cause.
35. On 9 February 2024, the Player acknowledged that the Club had failed to comply with the
instructions set out in his previous notice and therefore terminated the Contract claiming
just cause.
36. On 12 August 2024, the Player entered into an employment contract with the Spanish club
CD Móstoles URJC valid for the 2024/2025 season in Spain and for a monthly salary of EUR
400.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13845
II. Proceedings before FIFA
37. On 28 February 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Player
38. According to the Player, he played in 26 out of the 30 official matches of the China League
One – 2023, thus triggering the automatic extension under art. 9, par. 5.8 of the Contract.
39. Notwithstanding the above, the Player claimed that he had terminated the Contract for just
cause in accordance with both art. 14 and 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
40. First, the Player argued that the Club had failed to pay him sums amounting to much more
than two months’ salaries and had also failed to remedy the situation even after the two
notices sent on 22 January 2024 and on 6 February 2024.
41. The Player also argued that art. 14bis of the Regulations covers not only salaries but also
other overdue payments and that any assessment in this respect must take into account
whether the debt is significant, the extent of the delay and the behaviour of the parties.
42. In addition to consistently delaying payments, the Player claimed that the Club had also
engaged in other abusive conduct towards him. The Player pointed out that the Club had
not registered him for the 2024 season, thereby violating his fundamental right to
participate in official matches. The Player referred to the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in relation to the non-registration / deregistration of players, claiming that this could alone justify the premature termination of
the Contract.
43. Similarly, the Player alleged that the Club had failed to obtain a valid visa / work permit for
him to continue his career in China PR for the 2024 season. The Player claimed that he had
informed the Club accordingly and requested assistance with the renewal of his visa, but
to no avail. Again, the Player referred to FIFA and CAS jurisprudence and stated that he had
another valid reason for terminating the Contract.
44. Based on all the above considerations, the Player reiterated that he had validly terminated
the Contract on 9 February 2024 and that the Club should be liable for the financial and
sporting consequences.
45. In particular, the Player requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13845
“On these grounds. Mr. David Mateos hereby respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute
Resolution Chamber to rule that:
1) FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA Football Tribunal) has jurisdiction to hear and
adjudicate the present dispute.
2) The Claimant has terminated the Contract with just cause on 9 February 2024 or the
Claimant had just cause to terminate the Contract on 9 February 2024.
3) In all cases, the Respondent is obligated to pay the Clamant the following amounts:
• As outstanding remuneration, an amount of USD 89.344.77 NET (eighty-nine thousand
three hundred forty-four US dollars and seventy-seven cents) and RMB 3.000 NET (three
thousand Chinese Yuan) along with an interest of 5% p.a. broken down as follows:
An amount of USD 12.500 NET (twelve thousand five hundred US dollars) along
with an interest of 5% p.a. from 1 December 2023 until the date of effective
payment [salary of November 2023]:
An amount of USD 12.500 NET (twelve thousand five hundred US dollars) along
with an interest of 5% p.a. from 1 January 2024 until the date of effective payment
[salary of December 2023];
An amount of USD 28.000 NET (twenty-eight thousand US dollars) along with an
interest of 5% p.a. from 1 January 2024 until the date of effective payment [victory
bonus as per Article 3.3 of the Contract];
An amount of USD 19.965.46 NET (nineteen thousand nine hundred sixty-five US
dollars and forty- six cents) along with an interest of 5% p.a. from 1 January 2024
until the dote of effective payment [Pending Contract extension bonus as per
Article 9.5 (8) of the Contract];
An amount of USD 12.500 NET (twelve thousand five hundred US dollars) along
with an interest of 5% p.a. from 1 February 2024 until the dote of effective
payment [salary of January 2024];
An amount of USD 3879.31 NET (three thousand eight hundred seventy-nine US
dollars and thirty- one cents) along with an interest of 5% p.a. from 10 February
2024 until the date of effective payment [salary of 9 days of February 2024].
• As compensation, an amount of USD 133.620.69 NET (one hundred thirty-three
thousand six hundred twenty US dollars and sixty-nine cents).
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13845
4) To impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent as per Article 17 para. 4 of the FIFA
RSTP.”
b. Reply and counterclaim of the Club
46. On 5 April 2024, the Club responded to the Player’s claim and filed a counterclaim against
him.
47. The Club did not dispute that the Contract had been extended for the 2024 season but
claimed that the Player had terminated it without just cause.
48. In this respect, the Club first recalled the wording of art. 14bis of the Regulations, as
explained in the Commentary on the Regulations and as applied in CAS jurisprudence, and
stated that (i) the Club paid the salaries for November and December 2023 within the time
limit granted by the Player in his notice of 22 January 2024; (ii) the bonuses do not form
part of art. 14bis of the Regulations; and therefore (iii) the requirements of the cited art.
14bis were met.
49. The Club further emphasized that the Player did not intend to continue with the
employment relationship and that there was no breach on the part of the Club that could
justify the termination by the Player as an ultima ratio measure.
50. In this respect, the Club recalled all the messages sent by the Player to the President in an
attempt to “force the termination”. In particular, the Club argued that:
•
The Player made unfounded accusations regarding the Club’s foreign quota, which
the Club refuted by providing evidence that the other three foreign players recruited
by the Club were only registered on 19, 22 and 23 February 2024.
•
The Player made a public statement against the Club on his social media.
•
The Player expressed his desire to be transferred to Spain and, after the President
rejected his proposal, he sent a notice of default in retaliation.
•
There was still time for the Club to arrange a flight ticket and the Player’s visa, given
that the registration period in China would only end on 28 February 2024 and the
same timeline had already been applied in the previous season.
•
The Player stated that he would arrange the visa himself in Spain and that the whole
process would be completed within a week. However, the Player did not provide any
evidence that he had ever started this process.
•
Again, the Player terminated the Contract when there were less than two “salaries”
outstanding.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13845
51. The Club also furnished a written statement from the President confirming the above.
52. In light of the above, the Club claimed that the Player was liable to pay him compensation
for breach of contract based on the principle of positive interest, accounting for the
following criteria:
•
Residual value of the Contract: USD 133,750 net (i.e., the salaries from February
2024 to 31 December 2024).
•
Loss of transfer fees: EUR 75,000 net, corresponding to the market value of the
Player according to the website TransferMarkt.
•
Specificity of Sport: USD 35,500 net, equivalent to three months of the Player’s
salary, due to his erratic behaviour, in particular, his attempt to force the Club to
give him a raise, the breach of his confidentiality obligations, the clear intention to
breach the Contract and the frivolous claim submitted to FIFA.
53. The Club also requested that any compensation be awarded together with interest from
the date of the counterclaim until the date of actual payment by the Player.
54. In the alternative, and in the event that the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) accepted
that the Player had terminated the Contract with just cause, the Club argued that both
parties contributed equally to the termination and that the Player should therefore be held
accountable for his controversial behaviour.
55. The Club referred to similar cases in which CAS arbitrators considered that both parties
had damaged the stability of the contract, leading to a premature termination, and
therefore no compensation was awarded.
56. As a further alternative, and in the event that the DRC accepted that the Player had
terminated the Contract with just cause and should be entitled to compensation, the Club
argued that (i) any compensation should be mitigated in light of the Player’s subsequent
employment; (ii) it had already paid part of the bonus pursuant to art. 9.5 par. 8 of the
Contract and therefore any award in this respect should be limited to USD 11,320 due to
the ne ultra petita principle; and (iii) the bonuses referred to in art. 3, par. 3 of the Contract
were at the discretion of the Club and therefore should not be awarded.
57. In any event, given the circumstances of the case and the fact that the alleged breach
occurred outside the protected period, the Club claimed that no sporting sanctions should
be imposed on the Club.
58. The Club requested the following relief, quoted verbatim:
“In view of all the above legal and factual arguments, we hereby kindly request this
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13845
honourable Dispute Resolution Chamber:
1.To dismiss the claim of DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO against GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO
FOOTBALL CLUB in full.
2.To accept the counterclaim of GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB against
DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO.
3.To decide that DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO terminated his Employment Contract with
GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB without just cause.
4.To decide that DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO has to pay compensation to GUANGXI PINGGUO
HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB amounting to USD USD 133.750 (One thousand thirty three
thousand, seven hundred fifty US dollars) as remaining salaries under the Employment
Contract.
5.To decide that DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO has to pay compensation to GUANGXI PINGGUO
HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB amounting to EUR 75.000 (Seventy five thousand Euros) as loss
of transfer fees.
6.To decide that DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO has to pay compensation to GUANGXI PINGGUO
HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB amounting to USD 37.500 (Thirty Seven thousand, five hundred
US Dollars) as Specifity of Sports.
7.To decide that DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO has to pay a default interest of 5% p.a. to
GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB on all the amounts payable to GUANGXI
PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB as from 5April 2024.
In the alternative to the above mentioned requests
8.To decide that no compensation is payable in the present case.
As a further alternative
9.To decide that the compensation payable by GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL
CLUB to DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO must be mitigated in accordance with article 17 of the
RSTP and Article 337 c (2) of the Swiss Law on basis of the amounts under the new
employment contract, image rights contract, endorsement agreement/any agreement
relating to receiving remuneration.
10.To decide that no additional compensation is payable by the GUANGXI PINGGUO
HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB to DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO.
11.To decide that DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO is only entitled to receive USD 11.320 as bonus
from GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB under Article 9 para. 5.8 of the
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-13845
Employment Contract.
12.To decide that DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO is not entitled to receive any bonus from
GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO FOOTBALL CLUB under Article 3 para. 3 of the Employment
Contract.
13.To decide that no sporting sanctions shall be imposed on GUANGXI PINGGUO HALIAO
FOOTBALL CLUB.
In any case
14.To order DAVID MATEOS RAMAJO to pay all the legal and procedural costs arising from
this procedure.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim of the Player
59. On 28 February 2024, the Player submitted his reply to the counterclaim lodged by the
Club.
60. The Player refuted all the Club’s allegations regarding his alleged erratic behaviour. In this
regard, he made, inter alia, the following comments:
•
On the alleged increase in the Player’s salary for the 2024 season: neither FIFA
regulations nor Swiss law prohibit a party from making an offer / request to improve
the terms of a contract. The Club’s refusal and the Player’s disappointment were
immaterial to the case. In any event, the Player was willing to continue with the
Contract at the same salary.
•
On the Club’s failure to secure a visa or work permit: both art. 18, par. 4 of the
Regulations and art. 4 par. 10 of the Contract stipulated that the Club was
responsible for obtaining the Player’s visa. Unlike in the first season, when the Club
took care of the necessary formalities, the Club failed to send the necessary
documents to the Chinese consulate in Spain.
The Player alleged that he “was proactive and lent a helping hand to the [Club] since it
was not initiating the visa/work permit application process” (cf., §42 of the Player’s
submission). The Player claimed that the message submitted as evidence by the Club
only confirmed his good faith and willingness to cooperate with the process.
However, the Player alleged that he could not have applied for a visa on his own,
which he claimed that would also be against the logic of immigration law and art. 18
par. 4 of the Regulations. The Player further added that the “Letter of Notice” issued
by the Club in January 2024 was not an invitation letter as required by law, but
merely an authorisation for him to extend his holiday in Spain due to the Christmas’
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-13845
holiday.
Furthermore, the Player emphasized that he had sent two default notices requesting
the Club to issue / provide the documents to secure his visa, but to no avail.
•
On the Club’s non-registration of the Player: the Player referred to the voice
conference of 10 January 2024, in which the Club appeared to confirm that it had
already signed other foreign players and could only register the Player for the
second round of the season. According to the Player, on that occasion the parties
also discussed the possibility of a loan or an early release, but the Club expressly
stated that he would not be registered for the first round of the national
championship.
The Player also reiterated that, on the same occasion, he asked for documents
relating to his visa and stressed that he was owed outstanding remuneration.
Furthermore, the Player pointed out that the chronology of the events also
supported the view that the proposed loan to the Spanish club, per the offer
received on 19 January 2024, was a fair reaction or even a solution to the parties’
disagreements (and not an attempt by the Player to withdraw from the Contract).
Next, the Player questioned the probative value of the written statement issued by
the President due to his role within the Club.
Finally, the Player referred to FIFA jurisprudence and emphasised that the Club’s
argument that it could still register the Player until the end of the registration period
was flawed. In this respect, the Player pointed out that: (i) the Club had already
signed three foreign players despite being aware of the Contract; (ii) the Club had
expressly informed the Player that he would not be registered for the first round of
the season and that he would not be eligible to play in official matches; and (iii) the
Club had never responded to his notices of default or informed him that it still
intended to register him until the end of the registration period.
As a result, the Player insisted that the Club had violated his personal right of access
to competitions and rejected the Club’s argument that he should have waited until
the end of the registration period to terminate the Contract.
•
On the alleged violation of the confidentiality obligations: the Player did not
breach any confidentiality obligation but only spoke the truth to his fans, as verbally
communicated to him in the meeting of 10 January 2024.
Similarly, the Club had never contacted the Player or placed him in default following
the post on his social media. The Club also did not respond to his communications,
which were sent after the alleged breach, and could make this argument a posteriori.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-13845
•
On the Club’s failure to respond to the notices of default: the Club never replied
to or contested any of the Player’s notices, let alone objected to the amounts
claimed. By remaining silent, the Club clearly signalled that it was not interested in
retaining the Player’s services.
•
On the flight tickets: the Club was obliged to provide flight tickets for the 2024
season, which it failed to do. This, combined with the failure to take the necessary
measures to secure his visa, again indicated that the Club was not interested in
having him back.
•
On the Club’s persistent default in payments: since the beginning of the
employment relationship, the Club has delayed several payments. The Player
presented a spreadsheet with all contractual entitlements and payments by the Club
for the 2022 season, to which he also attached a full copy of his bank statements.
In particular, the Player pointed out that the payment made on 29 April 2023
concerned a debt from the 2022 season, in accordance with the settlement
agreement signed by the parties on 15 March 2023. The Player also pointed out that
it would be illogical for the Club to pay bonuses for matches that had not yet taken
place.
Similarly, the Player provided a breakdown of his entitlements and payments
received during the 2023 season together with a calculation of the monies allegedly
paid by the Club.
Next, the Player addressed the allocation of the partial payment made by the Club
on 5 February 2024. While the Player had attributed the payment to the bonus due
by the Club under clause 9, par. 5.8 of the Contract, the Club claimed that it related
to salaries for November and December 2023.
Irrespective of the allocation of the debt, however, the Player insisted that the
amount originally claimed in his statement of claim was still overdue at the time of
the termination.
61. In light of the above, the Player reiterated that art. 14bis of the Regulations applied in this
case, as the Club had failed to “fully remedy” its breach following the notice of 22 January
2024.
62. The Player then recalled that the following bonuses were due under the Contract and
outstanding at the time of the termination:
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-13845
Component under the Contract
Payment required to be made (USD)
Victory bonus [art. 3.3. par. 2]
28,000
Balance salary of until October 2023
2,965.46
Contract extension bonus [art. 9 par. 5.8]
42,155
63. In support of his claim, the Player argued that the winning bonuses were not discretionary
and that the Contract clearly established that they were payable in addition to the team
bonus. Furthermore, the Player claimed that, as these bonuses were not discretionary, they
should be considered as part of the salary included in the analysis of art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
64. The Player again referred to CAS and FIFA jurisprudence and argued that the total amount
outstanding at the time of the termination, even with the Club’s allocation, was equivalent
to almost six months of his monthly entitlement and that more than two months had been
elapsed since each amount fell due.
65. In the same vein, and in addition to the finding that the requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations were met, the Player also emphasised that the Club had failed to fully comply
with debt within the 15-day period granted in his notice. The Player claimed that, although
he received the salaries for November and December 2023, the bonuses and the balance
of the salaries up to October 2023 were still outstanding.
66. The Player therefore concluded that art. 14bis of the Regulations had been complied with.
At the same time, the Player also reiterated his position about the Club’s abusive behaviour,
which allegedly added up to the overall notion of just cause. The Player summarized his
views in this respect as follows, quoted verbatim:
“a. The Respondent persistently defaulted in salary and bonus payments under the
Contract and outrightly refuses to pay the overdue amounts;
b. The Respondent did not fully comply with its financial and other obligations under the
Contract despite being given two chances through notices of default, which remain
outstanding till date;
c. The Respondent never answered the notices of default of the Claimant;
d. Despite having a valid and binding contract with the Claimant, the Respondent signed
foreigners surplus in requirements;
e. Respondent did not provide the Claimant with requisite documents to apply for
visa/work permit nor did the Respondent initiate the said process from its end;
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-13845
f. The Respondent outrightly told the Claimant that he will not be registered for the first
half of the season and that he will not play in any official game for the Respondent
violating his fundamental and personality rights under the Contract;
g. The Respondent concealed evidence and misled FIFA by attempting to induce FIFA into
error by presenting facts and evidence incorrectly.”
67. In the alternative, and using a similar reasoning to that in the Club’s counterclaim, the
Player requested that the circumstances of the case be taken into account when
determining the breach. In particular, the Player requested that no compensation be
awarded to the Club, as it had contributed significantly to the breach and should therefore
be held accountable for the consequences.
68. In the further alternative, the Player claimed that any compensation be limited to one
quarter of the Player’s monthly salary in accordance with Swiss Law.
69. In light of the allocation of payments made by the Club in its reply, the Claimant updated
his relief as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Based on the evidence and arguments presented, Mr. David Mateos hereby respectfully
requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to rule that:
1) FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA Football Tribunal) has jurisdiction to hear and
adjudicate the present dispute.
2) To dismiss the Counterclaim filed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in full.
3) To rule that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has terminated the Contract with just
cause on 9 February 2024 or the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to
terminate the Contract on 9 February 2024.
4) In all cases, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is obligated to pay the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent the following amounts (for the convenience of FIFA DRC,
attached as EXHIBIT 24 is an excel sheet detailing the amounts and taking into
consideration the allocation of the Respondent):
•
As outstanding remuneration, an amount of USD 89,344.77 NET (eighty-nine
thousand three hundred forty-four US dollars and seventy-seven cents) and RMB
3,000 NET (three thousand Chinese Yuan) along with an interest of 5% p.a.
broken down as follows:
An amount of USD 2810,46 NET (two thousand eight hundred ten US
dollars and forty six cents) along with an interest of 5% p.a. as from 1
November 2023 until the date of effective payment [balance salary until
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-13845
October 2023];
An amount of USD 28,000 NET (twenty-eight thousand US dollars) [victory
bonus as per Article 3.3 para. 2 of the Contract] along with an interest of
5% p.a. from the following dates:
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 23 April 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 11 May 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 15 May 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 22 May 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 28 May 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 4 June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 11 June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 29 June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 23 July 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 13 August 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 27 August 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 19 October 2023 until the date of effective payment;
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 29 October 2023 until the date of effective payment;
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-13845
o USD 2,000 NET (two thousand US dollars) along with an interest of 5%
p.a. from 6 November 2023 until the date of effective payment.
OR
An amount of USD 28,000 NET (twenty-eight thousand US dollars) [victory
bonus as per Article 3.3 para. 2 of the Contract] along with an interest of
5% p.a. from 6 November 2023 until the date of effective payment.
An amount of USD 42,155 NET (forty-two thousand one hundred fifty-five
US dollars) along with an interest of 5% p.a. from 1 January 2024 until the
date of effective payment [Pending Contract extension bonus as per Article
9.5 (8) of the Contract];
An amount of USD 12,500 NET (twelve thousand five hundred US dollars)
along with an interest of 5% p.a. from 1 February 2024 until the date of
effective payment [salary of January 2024];
An amount of USD 3879.31 NET (three thousand eight hundred seventynine US dollars and thirty-one cents) along with an interest of 5% p.a. from
10 February 2024 until the date of effective payment [salary of 9 days of
February 2024].
An amount of RMB 3,000 NET (three thousand Chinese Yuan) along with
an interest of 5% p.a. from 1 January 2024 until the date of effective
payment [team bonus].
•
As compensation, an amount of USD 133,620.69 NET (one hundred thirty-three
thousand six hundred twenty US dollars and sixty-nine cents) along with an
interest of 5% p.a. from 9 February 2024 until the date of effective payment.
•
An amount of USD 1,529.95 NET (one thousand five hundred twenty-nine US
dollars and ninety-five cents) along with an interest of 5% p.a. from 1 December
2023 until the date of effective payment [bank commission and exchange rate
difference as the salary of the Claimant is NET].
5) To impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as per Article 17
para. 4 of the FIFA RSTP.
6) In case FIFA DRC rules that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not have just cause
to terminate the Contract, to rule that no compensation is due to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant hereby, rejecting points 4-7 of the request for relief
mentioned in the Counterclaim in full and granting the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-13845
the outstanding remuneration mention in para. 4 above.
7) In all cases reject in full the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim for costs pursuant
to Article 25 para. 8 of the FIFA Procedural Rules.”
d. Additional comments of the Club on the Player’s latest submission
70. On 20 May 2024, and at the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the Club submitted its
comments on the Player’s reply to the counterclaim and insisted that he had terminated
the Contract without just cause.
71. The Club first disputed the Player’s arguments regarding art. 14bis of the Regulations. In
particular, the Club re-stated that the article only refers to “salaries” and that two months’
salaries were not overdue at the time the Player sent his notice of default, and therefore
that the requirements were not met.
72. The Club then turned to the Player’s considerations in relation to art. 14 of the Regulations
and denied that there had been any abusive behaviour. The Club remarked:
•
On the alleged increase in the Player’s salary for the 2024 season: contrary to
the Player’s allegations, his messages to the Club “fell on the lines of blackmailing”.
The Player suggested that he would leave the Club if his salary was not increased,
persistently raising the issue with various people, which the Club said exceeded the
threshold of professional negotiation.
•
On the Club’s failure to secure a visa or work permit: the Player would have been
able travel to China regardless of the expiry of his residence permit. Furthermore,
the Club insisted that the Player had communicated his readiness to renew the visa
in Spain and that there was still plenty of time to rectify the situation before the start
of the official season.
•
On the Club’s non-registration of the Player: the Player did not provide any
evidence of de-registration, and, on the other hand, the Club proved that the other
foreign players were not registered until the end of February 2024. About the
recording and transcription submitted by the Player, the Club alleged, quoted
verbatim:
“- The Player does not attach the call logs nor does hee attach any evidence where it
shows who the call was with, he just attaches a photo of a group where in it says call
was initiated.
- The screenshot appended by the Player does not show how long the call was or what
the contents of the call were, this is nothing but a blatant attempt to mislead the
Honorable Chamber.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-13845
- This alleged call could be between anyone, there is no proof that the President
participated in this call.
- Even if hypothetically, just for the sake of arguments, the President did participate in
some capacity, the veracity of the phone call and the specific audio of the President
(if any) cannot be ascertained.
- It does not even prove if the audio recording was done or pertains to the date of 10
January 2024, as alleged by the Player.”
The Club referred to both CAS jurisprudence and Swiss Law and claimed that the
evidence provided by the Player was inadmissible. Furthermore, the Club reiterated
that it had plenty of time to register the Player and that he had therefore not
discharged the burden of proof.
•
On the alleged violation of the confidentiality obligations: the Player breached
the Contract by disclosing internal affairs on social media.
•
On the conditional payments: the Club reiterated that the bonuses under the
Contract were discretionary and therefore should not be included in the calculation
of the overdue payables (cf., art. 3, par. 3 of the Contract).
Therefore, the Club was not liable to pay any amount exceeding USD 11,230, as set
out in art. 9.5, par. 8 of the Contract, which the Club acknowledged was owed to the
Player. However, the Club also re-stated that a delay of a few weeks could not be
considered serious enough to justify an abrupt termination or entitle the Player to
compensation.
•
On the flight tickets: the Club still had time to issue the Player with new flight
tickets, as it had done in the previous season.
73. In conclusion, the Club reiterated its previous submission that the Player had breached the
Contract without just cause and was liable to pay compensation for breach of contract. The
Club also reiterated its alternative claim that, given the Player’s significant contribution to
the early termination, no compensation should be awarded in any event.
e. Additional comments by the parties on the Interim Regulatory Framework
74. On 4 February 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to submit any additional
comments in light of the new interim regulatory framework adopted by the Bureau of the
FIFA Council on 23 December 2024.
75. On 10 February 2025, the Club acknowledged receipt of the above correspondence and
confirmed that it did not wish to amend its submission.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-13845
76. On the same day, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player to submit any comments
he might have in this regard.
77. On 11 February 2025, the Player also confirmed that he did not wish to make any further
comments.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
78. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 28 February 2024 and submitted for decision
on 14 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the January 2025
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. Furthermore, 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 (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Spanish player and a Chinese club.
80. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
81. 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 TMS.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-13845
c. Merits of the dispute
82. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the 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
assessing the matter at hand.
83. Taking into account the parties’ different views on the admissibility of the evidence
provided by the Player, the Chamber also wished to outline that, in accordance with art.
13, par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, any type of evidence may be produced. Consequently,
the DRC stated that it had ultimate discretion over the weight to be given to any evidence
vis-à-vis their nature and relevance to the outcome of the case.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
84. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
brought by a player against a club for breach of contract and a counterclaim opposing the
same parties.
85. As a starting point, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties did not dispute the fact
that the Player had achieved the attendance target set out in art. 9 par. 5.8 of the Contract,
nor the validity of this clause. Therefore, the DRC confirmed that the parties had entered
into a valid and binding employment contact (i.e., the Contract), that its duration had been
extended to 31 December 2024, and that the Player was entitled to the same salary as in
the previous season.
86. The Chamber also acknowledged that the Player terminated the Contract on 9 February
2024, citing just cause under arts. 14bis and 14 of the Regulations. However, the Chamber
noted that the parties strongly disagreed as to whether the Player had just cause to do so,
and as to the consequences thereof.
87. Hence, the DRC recognized that its task was to determine the circumstances of the
termination and the resulting consequences.
A. THE TERMINATION
88. The Chamber initially recalled that, according to art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations:
“In the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his
contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-13845
a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial
obligation(s). Alternative provisions in contracts existing at the time of this provision
coming into force may be considered.” (emphasis added by the DRC).
89. According to the DRC, the above implied that two requirements must be met for art. 14bis
of the Regulations be successfully triggered: (1) at least two salaries must be outstanding;
and (2) the debtor must have been put in default and failed to fully remedy the breach
within 15 days.
90. In addition to the above, the Chamber noted that the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, as explored by the parties in their submissions and detailed by the Commentary
on the Regulations – Edition 2023 (hereinafter: the Commentary), pp. 123, establishes the
following:
“Article 14bis refers to unpaid and outstanding salaries. However, this does not imply
that delayed payment of other forms of (frequent, non-conditional) remuneration cannot
amount to just cause for a player to terminate their contract prematurely. A player
invoking other outstanding remuneration to terminate their contract may still have just
cause. The pertinent circumstances will have to be assessed against the general definition
of what constitutes a just cause in accordance with the terms of article 14, along with the
relevant general criteria set out in jurisprudence and described above. Particular
attention should be paid to factors such as whether the outstanding amount is
significant (i.e. that it is neither negligible nor totally subordinated), the extent of
the delay, the general attitude of the parties in the specific case and other relevant
factors.” (emphasis added by the DRC)
91. The Chamber therefore concluded that it had to address two issues relating to the parties’
disagreement on the Club’s overdue payables: first, whether the nature / extent of the
delay met the formal conditions of art. 14bis of the Regulations as a lex specialis; and
second, or alternatively, whether these circumstances were sufficient to establish just
cause under the general definition set out in art. 14 of the Regulations.
92. In this respect, the Chamber turned its attention to the evidence on file and noted that:
•
The Player sent the Club a first notice of default on 22 January 2024, demanding a
total of USD 105,965.46 and RMB 3,000, broken down as follows:
“- 19.677,26 RMB which is equivalent to USD 2,721.61 NET (two thousand seven
hundred twenty-ore US dollars and sixty-one cents) unpaid amount of the
September 2023 salary.
- 1.785 RMB which is equivalent to USD 243.85 NET (two hundred forty-three US
dollars and eighty-five cents) unpaid amount of the October 2023 salary.
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-13845
- 3.000 RMB NET team bonus.
- USD 50,000 NET (fifty thousand US dollars) bonus for contract extension cf.
clause 9.5 (8).
- USD 28,000 NET (twenty-eight thousand US dollars) victory bonus cf. clause 3.3.
- USD 12.500 NET (twelve thousand five hundred US dollars) salary for November
2023.
- USD 12.500 NET (twelve thousand five hundred US dollars) salary for December
2023.”
•
Within the 15-day period granted by the Player, the Club paid the following sums:
Reference (sic)
Amount (RMB)
Equivalent to USD*
“November 2023 salary”
89,515
12,450.60
“December 2023 salary”
88,462.50
12,304.20
“The 2023 bonus”
56,738.92
7,891.76
TOTAL
234,716.42
32,646.56
•
The Player sent a second notice of default on 6 February 2024, acknowledging
receipt of the partial payment of USD 33,000, but claiming the remaining balance of
USD 72,965.46 net, plus RMB 3,000.
•
The Club made no further payments, and the Player terminated the Contract.
93. The DRC also observed that during these proceedings:
•
The Player initially calculated his outstanding remuneration as follows:
o USD 12,500 for the November 2023 salary.
o USD 12,500 for the December 2023 salary.
o USD 28,000 for the victory bonuses per art. 3 par. 3 of the Contract.
o USD 19,965.46 for the balance of the extension bonus per art. 9 par. 5.8.
o USD 12,500 for the January 2024 salary.
o USD 3,879.31 for the pro-rated February 2024 salary.
•
The Club then contested the above claim / allocation of payments as follows:
pg. 29
REF. FPSD-13845
o The September and October 2023 salaries were paid on 1 December 2023.
o The November and December 2023 salaries were paid on 5 February 2024.
o The extension bonus under art. 9 par. 5.8 of the Contract was partially paid on
5 February 2024 (i.e., USD 7,845 out of USD 50,000). In addition, the Player
limited his request for this bonus to USD 11,320, which could not be exceeded
(ne ultra petita).
o The team bonus (RMB 3,000) and the victory bonuses (USD 28,000) were
discretionary pursuant to art. 3 par. 3 of the Contract and should therefore be
disregarded.
•
In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player reallocated the payments in light of the
Club’s submission, resulting in the same total debt but with different payment
components:
o USD 2,810.46 for the balance of the Player’s salary until October 2023.
o USD 28,000 for the victory bonuses per art. 3.3 of the Contract;
o USD 42,155 for the balance of the extension bonus per art. 9 par. 5.8.
o USD 12,500 for the January 2024 salary;
o USD 3,879.31 for the pro-rated February 2024 salary.
•
The Club (i) did not comment on the balance of the salary until October 2023 – as
calculated by the Player, (ii) reiterated its view that it had discretion over the
team/victory bonus; and (iii) also insisted on the limit imposed by the principle of ne
ultra petita.
Notwithstanding the above, the Club did not dispute the Player’s final calculations,
as shown in the spreadsheets submitted with the rejoinder, nor did it provide an
alternative calculation.
94. Following the exchange of submissions, the Chamber noted that the parties appear to
agree that the payments made by the Club on 1 December 2023 and 5 February 2024 were
ultimately intended to fulfil the Club’s financial obligations regarding the Player’s “salary”
stricto sensu.
pg. 30
REF. FPSD-13845
95. However, in the DRC’s opinion, this did not negate the fact that the Club did not pay the
remaining salary until October 2023, as thoroughly detailed by the Player and not disputed
by the Club, nor the additional bonuses.
96. Regarding the bonuses:
•
Victory / Team bonuses: the Chamber recalled that art. 3 par. 3 of the Contract
provided that:
“3. In addition to the salary stipulated in the paragraph 1 of this Article, [the Club] has
the right to determine whether to pay bonuses to [the Player] depending on the
circumstance. The amount as well as the payment method of the bonuses shall be
determined according to the relevant bonus distribution plan of [the Club]. [The Club]
shall have the right to make the final decision on the amount and payment method of
the bonuses. At the same time, the total amount of bonuses (before tax) paid by [the
Club] shall not exceed the maximum amount of bonus stipulated by regulations of
Chinese Football Association (‘CFA’) and/or the relevant League Management Council
(hereinafter referred to as: ’LMC’).
In addition to the foregoing, during the period of validity of the contract, [the
Player] shall be entitled to the following individual and first team performance
bonuses:
The winning bonus is 2000 USD per game.
If the first team promotes to the Chinese Super League, the bonus is 75000 USD after
tax. (The exchange rate is calculated at US $1, which is equal to RMB 6.50).”
(emphasis added by the DRC)
97. Although the Chamber agreed that this clause could have been drafted more clearly, it had
no doubts that the provision referred to two distinct entitlements. The first was to team
bonuses, which were paid at the Club’s discretion and in accordance with its international
regulations (which were not provided). The second was “in addition to” the first, consisting
of USD 2,000 for each match won.
98. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber found that the Player’s claim for USD 28,000 net in
victory bonuses not only had a contractual basis but was also supported by a match log
confirming the sporting achievements. The DRC also accepted the Player’s argument that
his claim in this respect was not disputed by the Club until they replied to the claim, which
the DRC considered to be against the Club’s position.
99. The Chamber then ruled that the Club should have paid this sum and that it is therefore
part of its debt towards the Player.
pg. 31
REF. FPSD-13845
100. Conversely, the DRC stated that the team bonus of RMB 3,000 was indeed discretionary
and was not properly substantiated by the Player. Hence, this claim was dismissed.
•
Contract extension bonus (cf., art. 9 par. 5.8 of the Contract): the Chamber
recalled that art. 9 par. 5.8 of the Contract provided that:
“5.8. If [the Player] plays 60% of the first League in 2023, it will automatically
renew the contract for one year and a one-time reward of $50,000 will be given
to [the Player] at the end of 2023. and the salary in 2024 is same as 2023; lf the
team enter into the Chinese super league in 2024, and [the Player] plays 50% in the
team in 2024, a one-time reward of $100,000 will be given to [the Player] before 31st
December 2024. If [the Player] plays 50% of the first League in 2024, a one-time reward
of $50,000 will be given to [the Player] in the end of 2024.”
(emphasis added by the DRC)
101. The Chamber noted that the Club accepted its debt but paid less than one-fifth of this
amount, equivalent to more than four of the Player’s salaries.
102. The DRC also found that the Club’s argument that the Player’s right to this sum was affected
by the principle of ne ultra petita to be groundless, as it was clear that the discrepancy arose
from a different allocation of the debt components.
103. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that, according to established doctrine and
jurisprudence, in order to determine whether the amount awarded exceeds the amount
claimed, it is necessary to factor in the total of all sums claimed in the (various) prayers for
relief. In other words, if the amount awarded does not exceed the total sum of the
monetary claims, the award is not ultra petita.
104. As a result, the Chamber concluded that, at the time of the termination and excluding the
February 2023 salary, which was not yet due, the Club owed the Player a total of USD
85,465.46. The DRC also noted that this sum was greater than six of his monthly salaries,
regardless of the title or nature.
105. The DRC also noted that the Player had sent two default notices to the Club. During this
time, the Club only paid part of the debt (i.e., the salaries for November and December
2023) and did not dispute the substantial outstanding remainder.
106. In this context, and notwithstanding the partial payment, the Chamber concluded that the
Club had failed to fully remedy its breach within seventeen days after receiving the first
default notice. Furthermore, the Chamber was also convinced that (i) this debt was
substantial, (ii) the debt remained outstanding for a significant period of time and (iii) the
Club’s conduct could not be condoned, particularly given that the evidence on file showed
pg. 32
REF. FPSD-13845
that the Club repeatedly delayed its payments throughout the Contract period and yet
failed to respond to the Player’s default notices.
107. Therefore, and even if the Chamber confirmed that the formal requirements of art. 14bis
of the Regulations had not been met, as not all of the amounts claimed by the Player in his
notice of default were “salaries” and the Player terminated on the third day of the second
default notice, the DRC still considered that such persistent and substantial breach of the
financial obligations by the Club justified the unilateral termination of the Contract by the
Player in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations.
108. Here, the Chamber underscored that the general definition of just cause under art. 14 of
the Regulations required an action of last resort (ultima ratio), taking into account the
individual facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the Chamber deemed that the
extent and significance of the debt, coupled with the Club’s lack of adequate response, to
be sufficient grounds for termination. According to the DRC, this could lead the Player, in
good faith, to believe that the Club would no longer fulfil its share of the contractual
obligations.
109. The DRC then stated that the foregoing was sufficient to confirm that the Player terminated
the Contract with just cause and the Club should be liable to the consequences thereof.
Therefore, the Chamber saw no reason to analyze further the additional breaches
discussed by the Player at this point.
B. THE CONSEQUENCES
110. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
111. Referring to the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber first ruled that
the Club must pay to the Player the outstanding amounts at the time of the termination,
plus default interest, broken down as follows:
•
USD 2,810.26 net for the remainder of the Player’s remuneration for the 2023
season, plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 November 2023.
•
USD 28,000 for the victory bonuses pursuant to art. 3 par. 3 of the Contract. As no
due date was defined in the Contract, the Chamber ruled that 5% interest p.a. be
applied as from 1 January 2024 (i.e., the day after the Contract was originally due to
end).
•
USD 42,155 for the balance of the extension bonus pursuant to art. 9 par. 5.8 of the
Contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2024.
•
USD 12,500 net for the January 2023 salary, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February
pg. 33
REF. FPSD-13845
2024.
112. As previously stated, the Chamber reiterated its decision to reject the Player’s claim for
RMB 3,000. Furthermore, in accordance with the Football Tribunal’s standard practice, the
DRC pointed out that the February 2024 salary should be factored in the compensation for
breach of contract, given that the termination took place on 9 February 2024 i.e., in the first
half of the month.
113. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable 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, taking into account the damage suffered, according to
the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts and circumstances of
each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned. .
114. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first 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.
115. As a consequence, 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. In this respect, as a general rule, the DRC recalled that the
compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall be equal to the residual value of
the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the player signed a new contract
following the termination of his previous contract.
116. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 137,500 net (i.e., 11 months’ salary at USD 12,500 net
each) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract.
117. 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 players general obligation to
mitigate their damages.
pg. 34
REF. FPSD-13845
118. Indeed, the Player found employment with the Spanish club CD Móstoles URJC. In
accordance with the relevant employment contract, the Player was entitled to EUR 2,200
for the overlapping period (i.e., 4.5 months’ salary at EUR 400 each). Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages by approximately USD 2,035.91,
converted from EUR to USD at the exchange rate on the signing date.
119. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the termination
of the Contract took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Club, and
therefore decided that the Player shall receive additional compensation.
120. In this respect, the DRC noted that the Player would, in principle, be entitled to an
additional compensation equivalent to three months’ salary at the time of the termination.
However, bearing in mind that the total compensation should never exceed the residual
value of the Contract, the Chamber decided to award additional compensation limited to
USD 2,035.91.
121. At this point, the Chamber recalled that the Club had also alternatively claimed that the
amount of compensation awarded to the Player should be reduced in light of his erratic
behavior. However, the Chamber considered that this argument could not succeed for the
following reasons:
•
Breach of confidentiality obligations: the Club never questioned the Player’s
public statement, nor did it initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Player or
raise this objection until its counterclaim. Furthermore, the DRC was not convinced
that, when considered alongside the rest of the case file, this statement was
sufficiently significant to warrant a reduction in compensation.
•
Alleged threats / blackmail for a salary increase: the DRC was also not persuaded
by the Club’s claim that the Player exceeded the boundaries of what could be
considered reasonable negotiation between an employer and an employee.
Furthermore, while the Chamber acknowledged that the Player had suggested he
might leave the Club if his salary was not increased, it found no evidence of
aggressive behavior or that this was a conditio sine qua non for his continuation at
the Club.
The Chamber applied the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, to the fact that the
Player forwarded loan offers to the Club, as these were not prohibited or concluded
without the Club’s authorisation.
In fact, the Chamber outlined that if the Player were to leave the Club due to its
refusal to alter the contractual terms and/or inducement by another club, the Club
pg. 35
REF. FPSD-13845
would still be entitled to seek redress for the alleged breach of contract before the
competent authorities.
•
Administrative formalities / other alleged attempts by the Player to force the
termination of the Contract: although the parties presented different versions of
each other’s responsibilities with regard to paperwork and the necessary
administrative measures to be taken in this respect, the Chamber was of the opinion
that the Club had a greater responsibility – and in the case at hand was expected to
be much more proactive – to ensure that the Player was provided everything
necessary to fulfil his obligations. Therefore, while the DRC was aware of the Player’s
message stating that he would obtain the visa in Spain, the DRC found no evidence
of bad faith in the case file, as suggested by the Club.
On the contrary, the chronology of the events led the Chamber to conclude that,
even if the Player did not proactively seek to return to the Club, he also received
conflicting messages from its representatives. From an overall analysis of the
evidence on file, the DRC found it decisive that, even though the Club denied ever
confirming the Player’s non-registration or providing the flight tickets, it failed to
verbalize the opposite: that it would retain his services.
122. Considering all the above, the Chamber decided to reject the Club’s alternative claim for a
reduction in the compensation awarded to the Player.
123. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber concluded that the Club must pay to the Player the
amount of USD 137,500 net (i.e., USD 137,500 minus USD 2,035.91 plus USD 2,035.91),
which was deemed a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in this case.
124. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player interest on the
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of termination (i.e., 9 February 2024)
until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
125. 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.
126. 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
pg. 36
REF. FPSD-13845
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.
127. 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.
128. 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.
129. 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
130. 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.
131. 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.
132. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 37
REF. FPSD-13845
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, David Mateos Ramajo, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, Guangxi Pingguo Haliao Football Club, must pay to the
Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 2,810.26 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1
November 2023 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 28,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 42,155 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- USD 12,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February
2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 137,500 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
9 February 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant 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 / Counterclaimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
pg. 38
REF. FPSD-13845
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 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
pg. 39
REF. FPSD-13845
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 40