Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3290
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 February 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Lucas
Ramos de Oliveira
BY:
DE WEGER Frans (the Netherlands), Chairperson
AWAD ALTHEBITY Khalid (Saudi Arabia), member
SARTORI Stefano (Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Lucas Ramos de Oliveira, Brazil
Represented by Mr Wallace Oliveira
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
KF Laci, Albania
Represented by Mr Jan Schweele
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
Veria NFC, Greece
Represented by Mr Wallace Oliveira
Page 2
REF FPSD-3290
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 7 August 2020, the Brazilian player Lucas Ramos de Oliveira (hereinafter: the player) and
the Albanian club KF Laci (hereinafter: the club) concluded an employment contract valid “for
two seasons starting from” 7 August 2020 until 31 May 2022 (hereinafter: the contract).
2.
According to section 1 of the contract, the club agreed to pay the player as follows:
- EUR 1,750 as gross salary per month;
- EUR 750 as “sports diet” per month;
- EUR 9,000 as a sign on fee.
3.
Section 4 of the contract reads inter alia as follows:
“Athletes who do not respect obligations of contract with [the club] are forced to undergo
sanctions:
if the player misses three times per month in training without [permission] of the club
therefore he must fines with a month’s salary“
4.
According to the information available in TMS, the relevant seasons in Albania were as
follows:
(a) season 2020/2021: from 01 July 2020 to 30 June 2021;
(b) season 2021/2022: from 01 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.
5.
On 16 May 2021, as alleged by the club, the player signed a “payment order” for payment
of EUR 2,300. The player disputes that the signature in the cited document belongs to him.
6.
On 22 May 2021, the club and the player’s agent exchanged WhatsApp messages. In such
conversation, the club forwarded two documents to the player’s agent, one titled “mutual
agreement” and instructed the agent to “just send lucas to sign the papers”. The agent
subsequently asked “the club pay this months”, to which the club replied “he has taken the
salary, this month, 2 days ago”.
7.
The mutual agreement established the termination of the contract. It was signed by the player
but never countersigned by the club.
8.
On 27 May 2021, the player left Albania in a flight bound to Rome, Italy.
9.
On 31 May 2021, the club sent a message on the first team’s WhatsApp group informing the
players that training would begin on “7/6/2021”.
10. On 1 June 2021, a contact named “Lukas Laçi” left the cited WhatsApp group.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3290
11. On 16 June 2021, by a letter dated 15 June 2021, the club fined the player the equivalent of
1 month’s salary (June salary) for alleged failure to participate in a training session (note:
document on file). Such letter was sent to the player via WhatsApp.
12. On 2 July 2021, the club sent a message to the player informing him inter alia that he was
“part of the team”, was “under contract” and that if he missed “3 days training without
reason” he would be fined. In reply, the player stated that he did not have any money and
asked the club if it could pay for his ticket.
13. On 21 July 2021, the player returned to Albania.
14. On 23 July 2021, the player sent a default notice to the club requesting payment of his May
and June salaries in the amount of EUR 5,000, granting it 15 days to comply with its
obligations (note: document on file).
15. On 7 August 2021, the player terminated his contract with the club citing just cause due to
three unpaid salaries for the months of May to July 2021.
16. Between 7 and 8 August 2021, the club’s president Mr. Pash Laska and Mr. Marcelo Troisi, a
former coach of the club, exchanged the following messages:
[20:40, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: President, you told Lucas that you will not pay because
he is very physically ill, how will he stay there without his salary?
[20:58, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: how do you think he stays 2 and a half months of
absolute rest without any day of training and will receive money without serving the team
[20:59, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: he did two tests, according to the coach he did not even
catch the norms of a 15-year-old
[21:00, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: on the first day of the test that I was, he did 2000
meters for 12 minutes as it seems to you
[21:02, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: when it comes to the game it will be paid, because it is
comfortable to drink beer in Brazil and then to claim for a salary with zero training
[21:03, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: and what are you going to do with Lucas Ramos?
[21:03, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: did you read what I wrote
[21:04, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: he understands
[21:04, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: ??
Page 4
REF FPSD-3290
[21:04, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: Po
[21:04, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: what do you think
[21:04, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: but what is your decision?
21:05, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: to train very well
[21:05, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: when you convince the coach that he is ready, he will
be paid
[21:08, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: Ok president
[21:16, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: how do you think if you are in my country
[21:16, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: 2000 meters per 12 minutes
[21:17, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: it is a scandal and you do it faster
[21:18, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: you know well in the contract there is neither drill nor
food
[21:18, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: and from the house that I left, I found out that he did
not pay the owner
[21:19, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: leket
[21:20, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: sir, do you pay an athlete with these parameters?
[21:22, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: president I do not understand why you do not want to
pay and leave him in the club, why did not you leave?
[21:23, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: do you have any logic?
[21:24, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: to pay the player who breaks all the rules of a club
[21:25, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: stays 2 and a half months off without reason
[21:25, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: and I will pay
[21:25, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: you have a little bit of logic
[21:26, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: ok president, I do not agree, the athlete works and has
a contract that must be paid, but do what you want ...
Page 5
REF FPSD-3290
[21:26, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: he in brazil team in activity
[21:26, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: and I will pay you
[21:27, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: for you , whatever
[21:27, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: right
[21:27, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: I did not understand
[21:27, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: for you , whatever
[21:27, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: Ok presidente, thank you
[21:28, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: the brain works
[21:28, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: or have you turned it off
[21:29, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: where the athlete worked in Brazil
[21:29, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci:?
[21:29, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: you drink beer
[21:29, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: and posting it on Instagram
[21:30, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: what is your work?
[21:30, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: can you give me an answer
[21:32, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: He went to Brazil because you no longer wanted the
athlete, you even took the clothes, what did you want him to do? I would stay there without
home, food. even in the last match Dário wrote to me saying that he would no longer need
to play for Laç
[21:45, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: leave them with me the messenger is in contract and
how did anyone say that he is not part of the laci
[21:46, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: therefore, do not know what to lie to you player
[21:47, 07/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: but to tighten the belt well until the end of the contract
[21:48, 07/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: Ok
Page 6
REF FPSD-3290
[11:15, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: take lukas why he did not go to training
[11:16, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: so
[11:16, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci:?
[11:16, 08/08/2021] Marcello Troisi: Ok
[12:07, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: talk to the athlete
[12:07, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci:?
[18:04, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: ore why do not you open the phone
[18:17, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: I think you are damning yourself together with the
athlete
[18:18, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: every time he does not show up for training, he will
have a penalty
[18:18, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: it is described in the contract
[18:19, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: he is getting rid of it because it will not be his turn to
play football
[18:20, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: and the money you received as a manager you received
5000 euros you will pay back
[18:22, 08/08/2021] Pasko Presi Laci: therefore, give work direction, return the athlete to
training
17. On 9 August 2021, the player left Albania.
18. On 25 August 2021, the player and the Greek club Veria NFC (hereinafter: Veria) signed a
contract, valid as from the same date until 30 June 2022 for a monthly salary of EUR 726.00.
In addition to the above monthly regular salaries, the player was also entitled to the following
amounts: (a) a Christmas gift of EUR 726; (b) an Easter gift of EUR 726; (c) a leave allowance
of EUR 363.
Page 7
REF FPSD-3290
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 11 August 2021, 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
20. The player lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract.
21. In support of his claim, the player submits that only a few months after signing the contract, the
club started sending messages to him and his representatives expressing “interest in terminating
his contract” and prohibited him from accessing the club’s facilities (note: messages on file).
22. The player adds that despite his several messages to the club’s director to execute the contract,
no replies were received. The player filed copies of the messages exchanged to this end.
23. According to the player, in July 2021, the club published an article in the Albanian local
newspaper stating that he “did not belong to the team anymore” and that this clearly shows that
the club was no longer interested in his services.
24. The player adds that on 8 June 2021, the club alleged that it had opened disciplinary proceedings
against him for a missed training and yet he was prevented from participating and that he was
not made aware of such proceedings.
25. According to the player, on 15 June 2021, the club’s Director sent him the decision of the above
proceedings for acknowledgment but he submits that the club failed to provide satisfactory
evidence to substantiate said internal disciplinary proceeding and therefore states that it should
be disregarded as it was an unsuccessful attempt by the club to avoid its contractual obligations.
26. The player adds that after his default notice dated 23 July 2021 to the club, he was expelled from
his house by the club but that on 2 August 2021, the club decided to let him participate in the
team’s training sessions.
27. The player also submits that he was subjected to abusive and inappropriate conduct by the club.
28. Additionally, the player adds that he did not receive his salaries for May to July 2021 in the
amount of EUR 7,500 (EUR 2,500 per month) and that as a result he terminated his contract on
7 August 2021 with just cause.
29. As a result of the above termination, the player submits that the club must pay EUR 25,000 as
the residual value of the contract (August 2021 to May 2022).
Page 8
REF FPSD-3290
30. In conclusion, the player requests to be awarded EUR 7,500 as outstanding remuneration and
EUR 25,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
31. The requests for relief of the player were the following:
- EUR 7,500 as outstanding salaries corresponding to May to July 2021 plus 5% interest
p.a. as of the due dates until the effective date of payment;
- EUR 25,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due
dates until the effective date of payment;
- To rule that the club is to be liable to pay all legal costs incurred by him.
b. Position of the club
32. The club replied and filed a counterclaim against the player and Veria.
33. In support of its requests above, the club wished to clarify that it had paid the May 2021
salary on 16 May 2021 and that it is therefore not outstanding as alleged by the player and
that he left Albania on 27 May 2021.
34. With the above in mind, the club submits that at the date of the default notice dated 23 July
2021, the player failed to discharge his burden of proving that the club had more than 2
salaries outstanding to him.
35. The club adds that according to Section 1 of the contract, the player’s salaries were in gross
amounts and that in Albania, all clubs are obliged to retain approximately 11% of their
players’ salaries due to taxes and social security – and that is why all payments are stipulated
in the contracts in gross amounts. Thus, the player’s net salary was in the approximate
amount of EUR 2,300 per month.
36. According to the club, on 31 May 2021, the player was communicated by the club, in the
team’s WhatsApp group, that the preparation for the season would start on 07 June 2021,
so all players were supposed to be present at the club’s headquarters on that date. The club
adds that the player failed to do so and, considering that he left the team’s WhatsApp group
on 01 June 2021, right after being informed of the date of return, he continuously failed to
present himself at the club’s facilities to start the preparation.
37. As a result of the above, the club submits that on 15 June 2021, the player was fined for not
being present in any of the training sessions since the start of the preparation.
38. According to the club, on 16 June 2021 and on 02 July 2021, the club’s representative sent
messages to the player urging him to be present at the training sessions of the preparation
for the 2021/2022 season, and the player admitted to not being back in Albania yet –
Page 9
REF FPSD-3290
therefore, admitting to having abandoned his work without authorization or informing the
club.
39. The club adds that on 21 July 2021, i.e., after staying almost two months away from his
workplace without providing his services to the club and, thus, having abandoned his work,
the player entered Albania again.
40. The club denies the player’s allegation that it was no longer interested in his services and that
it prohibited him to access its facilities and that the player’s submitted exhibit does not
support his allegation in any way.
41. The club also noted that exhibit 6 of the player’s claim is untranslated and not dated and
requests that it be disregarded by FIFA.
42. The club further strongly denies the player’s allegations that it had inappropriate conduct
towards him and also objects to Exhibit nº 09 of the claim stating that those messages do not
prove who are the senders and the receptors. The club further notes that the player’s
translation expressly mentions Mr. Marcello Troisi, who is not a party to these proceedings.
Moreover, the club notes that not even the phone number of the person interacting with
Marcello Troisi is shown in the player’s Exhibit nº 09, nor is it, for instance, certified by a
registered notary as a legitimate document corresponding to the truth. Therefore, the club
also requests that exhibit 9 of the claim must be disregarded.
43. In continuation, the club submits that after having abandoned his duties, the player
unilaterally terminated the contract with the club on 7 August 2021 and 20 days later he was
publicly announced as a new player for Veria.
44. In view of all the above, the club submits that given that the player’s salary for the month of
May 2021 was paid, and considering that in June 2021 he abandoned his work, there are no
outstanding salaries owed to him and that the player failed to discharge his burden of proof
in that regard.
45. As a result, the club submits that it is the player who breached the contract and unilaterally
terminated it without just cause before any of the salaries related to June and July 2021
became due and should be held liable to pay compensation to the club for breach of contract
in the amount of EUR 64,000 and that Veria should be held jointly and severally liable.
46. The requests for relief of the club were the following:
Preliminarily
- That exhibit 6 and 9 of the claim be disregarded;
Subsidiarily
Page 10
REF FPSD-3290
- That no compensation shall be due from any of the parties to the other as there was mutual
breach of the contract;
- That the compensation requested by the player be reduced by the May 2021 salary, which
was duly paid and mitigated by the player’s salary with the new club.
Counterclaim
- Order the player to pay EUR 64,000 as compensation for breach of contract;
- Declare Veria NFC jointly and severally liable for the payment of the compensation above;
- That the player be held liable to bear the costs of the proceedings.
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the player
47. The player in reply to the counterclaim reiterates his position in his claim and states that the
club breached the contract by not paying his salaries and should therefore be held liable to
pay his outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
48. Furthermore, the player strongly denies the club´s allegations that, on 16 May 2021, the salary
related to May 2021 was paid and stresses that the May 2021 salary was not paid.
49. According to the player, exhibit R02 of the club was not signed by him and is false. The player
attached a copy of an expert report of said document.
50. The player reiterates that after 3 months of unpaid salaries and messages from the club
expressing disinterest in his services, he was left with no choice but to terminate the contract
(note: document on file).
51. According to the player, he never left the club without permission as alleged but that on 27
May 2021, he took his annual leave and was released from his contractual obligations with
the club during this time as proven by the messages from the club’s sports Director confirming
that he was released.
52. The player adds that due COVID-19, he was unable to travel on time to re-join the team.
53. Moreover, the player adds that he believed that he was released of his contractual obligations
towards the club, since the club which showed, inter alia, it was no longer interested in his
services and prohibited him to access the club´s facilities.
54. According to the player, he sent several messages to the club’s sports Director but that these
messages remained unanswered as shown in exhibit 5 of his claim. As a result, the player
rejects the club’s submission that it was him who breached the contract.
55. Furthermore, the player states that he club did not produce satisfactory evidence to substantiate
that it followed any regulatory requirements for the imposition of a fine on the player, or if the
Page 11
REF FPSD-3290
respective procedure was compliant with basic procedural rights (i.e., the player in question was
offered due opportunity to present his case and was granted the possibility to defend himself)
and if the player’s right to be heard has been respected.
56. With respect to the exhibit 4 of the claim that the club requested to be disregarded, the player
submits that the club is acting in bad faith and reiterates that this Whatsapp conversation took
place between the club’s President Mr. Pash Laska and Mr. Marcelo Troisi, a former coach of the
club.
57. According to the player, the club did not contest his default notice dated 23 July 2021 and that
its silence and passivity was deemed to be tacit acceptance.
58. In conclusion, the player deems that he terminated the contract with just cause for 3 outstanding
salaries and requests to be awarded outstanding remuneration and compensation as indicated in
his claim.
d. Reply to the counterclaim by Veria
59. Veria II in reply rejects the counterclaim and submits that this is an attempt by the club to
“extort money it does not deserve”.
60. According to Veria, it concluded a contract with the player under the full impression that he
was a free agent and that it was never approached by the club to contest the registration of
the player.
61. Veria adds that while it can be considered as acceptable to hold a club jointly liable when it
hires a player who has wrongfully terminated a contract with his previous club, the same does
not apply when the player had just cause to terminate with his previous club.
62. According to the intervening club, the club’s proposed interpretation of article 17.(2) of the
RSTP, according to which the joint and several liability rises simply from a club's status as a
player's New Club, would make this provision "non-compliant with both (i) Swiss law
(applicable to the merits) and (ii) EU law (applicable as mandatory law and which influenced
the very adoption of the 2021 FIFA Regulations that are here the object of interpretation)".
63. Veria adds that the player and his representative granted he was a free agent when he was
contracted by the club, since he exposed, i.e., after 3 months without his total remuneration
and “being disrespected as a professional and human being”, so he was left with no choice
but to terminate the contract with just cause. Veria therefore submits that it therefore had
no reason to contact his former employer, which was no longer contractually bound to the
player, as his contract had been terminated.
Page 12
REF FPSD-3290
64. In conclusion, Veria submits that it has not committed any fault, was not involved in the
termination of the contract by the player, and did not induce him to leave. It would be unjust
to condemn to therefore condemn it to pay the damages to the club.
65. According to Veria, under these circumstances and as a matter of fairness, its joint liability, if
any, should in any event be reduced, if not excluded.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
66. 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 11 August 2021 and submitted for decision
on . Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
67. 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 (August 2021 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 Brazilian player and
an Albanian club, with the involvement of a Greek club.
68. 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 11 August 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
69. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of
the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged
fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed the wording
of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed
by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer
Matching System (TMS).
Page 13
REF FPSD-3290
c. Merits of the dispute
70. 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
71. 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 whether the player had just cause
to terminate the contract for outstanding remuneration, bearing in mind (a) the alleged
payment of the player’s salaries in May 2021 and (b) the fine imposed on the player.
72. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid
by the club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had
in fact been fulfilled.
73. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of
at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
74. The Chamber noted that the player claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to the months between May and July 2021. Furthermore, the Chamber noted
that the player has provided written evidence of having put the club in default on 23 July
2021, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 7 August 2021. The
DRC did not fail to notice that by the time the default notice was sent, the player was claiming
his salaries of May and June only.
75. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the club bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties. It
accordingly turned to the evidence available to determine whether that was the case.
76. The club submits that it paid the May 2021 salary and submits a payment receipt, that is in
turn contested by the player, who submits that he did not sign said document and did not
receive the alleged payment. The player further submits an expert report of said document
which appears to confirm that said document is not signed by him.
Page 14
REF FPSD-3290
77. When comparing the signature on the payment receipt with the player’s signatures on the
contract, his power of attorney and passport, the Chamber noted that there is a significant
difference in the signatures:
Passport:
Power of attorney:
Contract:
Receipt:
78. In the absence of further documentation such as a bank statement or transfer and noting
that the receipt is handwritten, the DRC was not comfortable to confirm if said payment was
made to the player. On the contrary, the Chamber was further comforted in such decision by
the fact that the club’s representative stated on 22 May 2021 to the player’s agent that the
player had collected his salary allegedly “2 days ago”, which is not consistent with the receipt
filed.
79. On the basis of the above, the Chamber determined that the club failed to meet its burden
of proof to demonstrate that the salary of May 2021 was paid to the player.
80. The Chamber then turned to the issue of the fines imposed on the player by the club. Both
parties confirm that the player was fined the equivalent of one month salary in June 2021.
However, based on the submissions on file, the Chamber noted that it appeared that the club
Page 15
REF FPSD-3290
did not respect due process and that the player was never given a chance to provide his
position. The documentation on file is quite revealing to this extent; the club directly imposed
such fine on the player without asking for his position or seeking, to a minimum degree, his
explanations as to his alleged absence.
81. Additionally, the DRC could not avoid to underline that even if the club had properly
conducted the discipline it decided to impose on the player, the amount of the fine is grossly
disproportionate insofar as it meant the player would undergo an entire month worth of his
work without any remuneration.
82. As a result, the DRC set aside the fines imposed on the player and concluded that the June
2021 salary is also outstanding to the player.
83. Noting that on 23 July 2021, the player sent a default notice to the club for 2 outstanding
salaries for May and June 2021 and that he terminated the contract on 7 August 2021, the
Chamber was satisfied that that the criteria of art. 14bis of the Regulations is met and the
player had just cause to terminate the contract.
84. To this end, the Chamber wished to remark that the contents of the club’s president messages
cannot go unnoticed, moreover considering that the player eventually resumed his duties
with the club and that by the time of termination, 3 salaries remained outstanding. It shall be
noted that the evidence submitted by the player is valid insofar as the Procedural Rules do
not require that a certified translation is filed and the club presented no evidence in support
of the allegation that the conversation was not authentic. What is more, the Chamber was
satisfied with the witness statement presented by the player.
85. Lastly, the Chamber also remarked that the club did not respond to the default notice, hence
contributing to the termination insofar as no objection was raised – despite of the player’s
absence from Albania.
86. As the player had just cause to terminate the contract, the club must endure the
consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
87. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.
88. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 3 salaries under
the contract, amounting to EUR 7,500 in total.
89. As a consequence, 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
Page 16
REF FPSD-3290
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 7,500 (3 times
EUR 2,500).
90. On this note, the Chamber highlighted that the contract makes no reference as to whose
responsibility it is to pay taxes. At the same time, the club did not submit evidence to justify
its allegation that it was entitled to retain 11% of the player’s salary, and thus this line of
reasoning was rejected by the DRC.
91. Consequently, the Chamber awarded the player’s outstanding remuneration as gross
amounts as indicated in the contract.
92. In addition, 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 at the rate of 5%
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from their respective due dates until the date of effective
payment.
93. 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.
94. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual
parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
95. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said
provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
96. 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 EUR 25,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract for 10 months à EUR
Page 17
REF FPSD-3290
2,500 for each month between August 2021 and May 2022) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
97. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
98. Indeed, the player found employment with Veria. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR 907.50 per month,
considering a monthly salary of EUR 726.00, plus 2.5 additional salaries as guaranteed
benefits (leave, Christmas, and Eater bonus) for a period of 10 months. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR
8,167.50, that is, 9 times EUR 907.50, since the 10th month falls outside the original term on
the prematurely terminated contract.
99. 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 contract termination took
place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that the
player shall receive additional compensation.
100.In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
7,500, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
101.Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR
24,332.50 to the player (i.e. EUR 25,000 minus EUR 8,167.50 plus EUR 7,500), which was to
be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
102.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 claim until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
103.Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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
Page 18
REF FPSD-3290
party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due
time.
104.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.
105.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 player in accordance with art.
24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
106.The player 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.
107.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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
108.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.
109.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.
110.Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties. As such, the claim of the player was partially accepted and the club’s
counterclaim entirely rejected.
Page 19
REF FPSD-3290
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, Lucas Ramos de Oliveira, is partially
accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, KF Laci, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 the
following amounts:
- EUR 2,500 gross as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 2,500 gross as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 2,500 gross as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 24,332.50 gross as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 11 August 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), 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 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.
Page 20
REF FPSD-3290
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 in accordance with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter 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 21
REF FPSD-3290
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 22