Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17270
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 March 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Rajko Rep
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Rajko Rep, Slovenia
Represented by Blaz Tomažin Bolcar
RESPONDENT:
HNK Segesta, Croatia
Represented by Davor Lazić
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17270
I. Facts of the case
1.
The parties to this dispute are:
•
The Slovenian player, Rajko Rep (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant); and
•
The Croatian club, HNK Segesta (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent), affiliated to the
Croatian Football Federation (HNS).
2.
According to the Player, on 31 May 2024, he was offered to enter into a representation
agreement with the Club’s president, Mr. Ervin Mehinović (hereinafter: the Club’s President).
Also according to the Player, he did not sign this agreement.
3.
On 1 June 2024, the parties concluded a document titled “Contract about gameplay”
(hereinafter: the Contract), valid as from 15 July 2024 until the end of the 2025/2026
competitive season, i.e. 15 July 2026.
4.
According to clause 9 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player the following
amounts:
“During the duration of the contract, the Club shall provide the Player with savings:
(state the obligations of the Club towards the Player according to the Club's general acts
such as e.g.) :
Season 2024/2025 - Year of income 21,600.00 euros in a period of 12 months. (10th-15th
in month).
Season 2025/2026 - Year of income 21,600.00 euros in a period of 12 months. (10-15 in
month.)
Extended additional 12 months - Same conditions as in the first two seasons.
The player is entitled to bonuses: goal -10 euros, assistance 50 euros (payment on a
monthly basis).
The Club undertakes to provide accommodation in the City of Sisak near the stadium
(Apartment-40-60m2) without overhead costs.”
5.
Furthermore, clause 12 stipulated:
“The Contracting Parties agree that the provisions of Article 7, paragraph 1, Article 9 of
this Agreement shall constitute the essential clauses of this Agreement, such breach or
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17270
non- compliance shall have the effect of terminating this Agreement to the detriment of
the person who has committed the breach or has not complied with the material clause.”
6.
Lastly, clause 14 stated (quoted verbatim):
“This contract is made in three copies, each with the force of the original, and the Game
and the authorized signatory of the club certify the signatures on this contract by a notary
public, (club, player, HNS)
The club keeps one copy for their needs, the Player one copy for her own needs, and one
copy in the records of the Croatian Football Federation.”
7.
On 26 June 2024, the HNS’ registration period for professional male players opened, lasting
until 5 September 2024.
8.
On 3 July 2024, the Club announced on its Instagram page that it had hired the Player.
9.
On an unspecified date, which according to the Player was 18 August 2024, the Player sent
a WhatsApp message to the Club’s President, stating the following:
“You need to prepare a new contract for me by Monday because the current one is no
longer valid. It was signed on 1.6.2024, and within 30 days it was supposed to be sent to
the Federation, but it wasn't.
A new contract must be made and sent to the Federation, which will then send it to the
Austrian Federation for registration, as this is an international transfer. My club will issue
the certificate, and I can be registered in a minute. Everything is handled through the
player registration system.
The old contract is no longer valid, and we can't do anything with it anymore. The only
option would be through legal means, but I don't want that because that wasn't our
agreement. I'm sticking to the agreement between you and me— that's it.
So, prepare the new contract, I'll have it reviewed by a lawyer, and we can resolve this in
5 minutes.”
10. Also on an unspecified date, which according to the Player was 18 August 2024, the Player
exchanged some WhatsApp messages with the Club’s President:
“Player: Hello. When will we meet tomorrow? thank you, greetings
Club’s President: I'll call you in the morning and we'll arrange everything.
Player: Agreed. Favorably more.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17270
Club’s President: Thank you, Mr.”
11. According to the Player, on 19 August 2024, he attended a meeting with the Club’s sports
director and the Club’s President, during which they informed him that they could not
register him with the HNS as the Contract was not in the proper format. Also according to
the Player, the Club’s sports director told him not to attend any training sessions and
presented him with two offers from other clubs.
12. On 26 August 2024, the Player sent a notice to the Club, stating that a fundamental
prerequisite according to the Contract was to register him both with the Club and the HNS,
in order to enable him to perform his obligations under the Contract. However, the Player
argued that he had not been registered to play, nor had the Club initiated the necessary
process within the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS). Additionally, the Player argued
that the Club had breached the Contract by not providing him with accommodation. In this
regard, the Player stated that the failure to register him amounted to a material breach of
the Contract without just cause, which entitled him to terminate the Contract with just
cause based on art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter:
the Regulations). Based on the foregoing, the Player requested the Club to comply with all
their obligations by no later than 30 August 2024.
13. On 2 September 2024, the Player sent a notice of termination, reaffirming that the Club
had failed to register him with the HNS, provide him with accommodation and pay his
salary for July 2024. In light of the failure to register him, the Player terminated the Contract
arguing just cause, citing art. 14 of the Regulations. The Player requested the Club payment
of EUR 43,200 within 15 days.
14. Also on 2 September 2024, the Player had a seven-minute call with a contact saved as “Mile
Buinac sportski Segesta”, which, according to the Claimant, was the Club’s sports director.
15. Also on 2 September 2024, the Player signed a contract with the Austrian club Oberwart,
valid as from the date of the signature until 31 December 2024. According to this contract,
the Player was hired as an amateur and was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 850 gross,
as well as two prorated special payments and a lump-sum reimbursement for travel
expenses and allowances.
16. On 15 November 2024, the Player signed a new contract with the Austrian club Oberwart,
extending the expiration date of the contract until 30 June 2025. In this contract, it was
specified that, in addition to the monthly salary, the Player was entitled to a monthly flatrate travel and expense allowance up to EUR 720.
17. On 31 January 2025, at the request of the FIFA general secretariat, the HNS informed that,
according to their records, the Player is not and has never been registered with the Club.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17270
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 28 November 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
19. According to the Claimant, he terminated the Contract with just cause. In this regard, the
Player argued that the breaches committed by the Club were not only abusive conduct but
also a clear violation of the trust the Claimant had.
20. In this context, the Player stated that the Club committed the following breaches:
a) Failure to ensure all administrative formalities: according to the Claimant, the Club had
two obligations upon the conclusion of the Contract: (i) to initiate the procedures in TMS
and procure the Player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC), and (ii) to register him with
the HNS. The Player stated that the Club did not take any proactive steps to register him
prior to the deadline of 5 September 2024, which was its sole responsibility based on the
jurisprudence.
b) The Club created a legitimate expectation that all formalities had been complied with:
according to the Claimant, the Club had until 15 July 2024 to comply with the administrative
formalities. In this regard, the Claimant stated that on 15 July 2024, he started training, and
the Club did not mention anything about his non-registration. Also according to the
Claimant, he even played four friendly matches, which gave him the impression that all
administrative formalities to ensure the performance of the Contract were complied with.
c) The validity of the Contract is independent of administrative obligations of the Club: the
Player mentioned that the procurement of the ITC and the registration with the HNS are
not pre-conditions to the validity of the Contract but rather obligations that the Club must
fulfil.
d) The Club’s conduct was abusive: the Player stated that, in addition not to register him,
the Club failed to pay him the salary for July and August 2024. Additionally, he argued that
the Club never provided him with accommodation and forced him to drive nearly 150 kms
every day.
e) The Player also argued that he granted a possibility to the Club to fulfil its obligations,
but it failed to reply, and that the Contract was breached in the protected period.
21. Fundamentally, the Claimant stated that the non-registration prevented him from
performing his obligations under the Contract and also constituted an express violation of
his right to work.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17270
22. Based on the above, the Player argued that he is entitled to (i) EUR 2,820 as outstanding
salary, (ii) EUR 40,380 as the residual value of the Contract, and (iii) EUR 1,323 for the
amount incurred in fuel and toll costs to attend training sessions. Additionally, he informed
that he was able to mitigate his damages in EUR 8,500.
23. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following (quoted verbatim):
“24. Hence, pursuant to the above, the Claimant requests for the following reliefs:
i. Accept the Claim;
ii. Declare that the Claimant terminated the Contract with just cause on 2 September
2024;
iii. Direct the Respondent to pay an amount of EUR 36.207,80 (Thirty Six Thousand Two
Hundred and Seven Euros only and Eighty Cents) plus 5% interest per annum calculated
from the day following the date of termination (i.e. one day after 2 September 2024) to
the date of actual payment;
iv. Impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent as contemplated under Article 17 (4) of
the FIFA RSTP for the breach of the Contract during the protected period; and
v. Direct the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant for all the legal costs and fees
incurred in the course of these proceedings.”
b. Position of the Respondent
24. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to reply to the claim
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
25. 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 November 2024 and submitted for
decision on 27 March 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17270
26. 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 Slovenian player and a Croatian club.
27. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the Single Judge confirmed that, in accordance
with its art. 29, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
28. 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.
c. Merits of the dispute
29. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
30. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerns a claim
of a player against a club for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of
contract.
31. The Chamber recalled that, according to the Player, he terminated the Contract with just
cause because the Club failed to register him with the HNS. Additionally, the Chamber
noted that the Player stated that the Club failed to provide him with accommodation and
to pay the salaries for July and August 2024.
32. Since the Respondent did not provide its position on the claim, the Chamber pointed out
that the decision shall be taken based on the documentation already in the file (i.e., the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17270
statements and documents presented by the Claimant) (cf. art. 21 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules).
33. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish whether the Player
had just cause to terminate the Contract and, if so, its consequences.
34. First, the Chamber referred to art. 14 of the Regulations, which stipulates:
“1. A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind
(either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just
cause. In general, just cause shall exist in any circumstance in which a party can no
longer reasonably and in good faith be expected to continue a contractual relationship.
2. Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or
change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a player or a club) to
terminate the contract with just cause.”
35. Additionally, the Chamber remarked that the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal has
established on numerous occasions that a premature contractual termination may only
arise where there has been a substantial or repeated breach of contract by the relevant
counterparty, and if there are more lenient measures for the parties to remedy their
contractual relationship, those measures should be turned to prior to unilaterally
terminating the Contract. A premature unilateral termination of the Contract may only be
an ultima ratio measure.
A) What were the breaches committed by the Club?
36. In this respect, the Chamber moved on to analyse what were the breaches purportedly
committed by the Club, taking into account that the Player alleged that (i) it failed to initiate
the request for the ITC; (ii) it failed to register him with the HNS; (iii) it failed to provide him
with accommodation; and (iv) it failed to pay him the salaries for July 2024 and August 2024.
37. Regarding the first breach argued by the Player, the Chamber noted that, from the
information retrieved from TMS, there are no records of the Player’s transfer from his
former club to the Club. Based on this, and since the Club did not provide any evidence of
having initiated the request for the ITC, the Chamber concluded that the Club indeed failed
to initiate the request.
38. About the registration with the HNS, the Chamber observed that, at the request of the FIFA
general secretariat, the HNS informed that the Player is not and has never been registered
by the Club. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber highlighted that the HNS provided
the FIFA general secretariat with a list of all the players registered by the Club for the
football season 2024-2025, which shows that the Player was not included. In this respect,
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17270
the Chamber considered that it is clear that the Club did not register the Player with the
HNS.
39. Furthermore, the Chamber stated that the Club did not provide any evidence of having
provided accommodation to the Player, which was one of the obligations under the
Contract. Thus, the Chamber determined that the Club also failed to comply with this
obligation.
40. In connection with the salaries, the Chamber noted that, according to the Contract signed
on 1 June 2024, the Club was obliged to pay the Player EUR 21,600 for the season 2024/2025
within a period of 12 months. Additionally, the Contract stated (quoted verbatim) “10th – 15th
in month”, which the Chamber interpreted as meaning that the salaries were to be paid
between the 10th and the 15th day of each month, considering that the wording specifies “in
month” and does not make any reference to the following month.
41. Given that the Contract specifically stated it started on 15 July 2024 and was valid until 15
July 2026, and regardless of the actual dates of the season 2024/2025, the Chamber then
established that the Player was entitled, within the season 2024/2025, to 15 days of July
2024 (EUR 900), full salaries for the months between August 2024 – June 2025 (EUR 1,800
times 11 = EUR 19,800), and 15 days of July 2025 (EUR 900).
42. Based on the above, the Chamber interpreted that the Club should have paid the Player,
no later than 15 July 2024, the prorated amount for that month, which was EUR 900, and
no later than 15 August 2024 the full salary for August, which was EUR 1,800. Nonetheless,
the Club failed to provide any evidence of having paid this amount and/or any justification
demonstrating that it had a valid reason for not doing so.
43. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber wished to emphasise that the Player did not
request payment of these salaries in his notice of default and only referred to the nonregistration and the failure to provide accommodation.
B) Notice of default and termination
44. Then, the Chamber analysed the behaviour of the parties and saw that on 26 August 2024,
the Player sent a notice of default, stating that the Club (i) failed to initiate the process for
the ITC request, (ii) failed to register him with the HNS and (iii) failed to provide
accommodation. In this regard, the Chamber also observed that the Player granted the
Club until 30 August 2024, i.e., four days, to comply with all the obligations stipulated in the
Contract.
45. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that on 2 September 2024, i.e., on the seventh day after
sending the notice of default, the Player terminated the Contract, stating that the failure to
register him with the HNS prevented him from participating in competitive football and
violated his fundamental rights.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17270
C) Conclusion
46. Considering that the Player terminated the Contract fundamentally due to nonregistration, the Chamber first recalled the well-established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, that stated that the registration procedure is the sole responsibility of a club and
upon which a player has in general no influence. As the Club is supposedly interested in
acquiring the rights of the Player and in benefiting from his services, it is also expected that
it acts accordingly and executes the administrative formalities in view of obtaining, for
instance, the registration with the engaging federation.
47. Additionally, the Chamber referred to the Commentary on the Regulations (2023 edition),
which, in page 136 and 137 establishes:
“ (…) a club – as an employer – has the duty to protect the personality rights of the player
– as an employee. The career development of a footballer may be prejudiced as a result
of inactivity and thus, the club has a duty to allow its players to engage in the activity for
which, in principle, they have been employed and are qualified to perform. (…)
A similar approach applies to the non-registration of a player. This often happens where
a club does not undertake all the necessary due diligence to determine that a player it
has signed is eligible to be registered to participate in a championship (e.g. due to a
specific foreign player rule, or specific squad size limit) or, as has been seen in recent
cases, where a club fails to obtain the ITC (through its own decision or negligence) before
the close of the relevant registration period, despite having signed an employment
contract with a player. Again, it is the club’s responsibility to register the player on time.
If the registration cannot be completed, the player will not be able to participate in
organised football. Therefore, if it fails to act, the club is effectively blocking the player’s
access to competitive football. This is a violation of a footballer’s fundamental rights, and
gives the player concerned just cause to terminate the contract. (…)”
48. Regarding this specific case, the Chamber first highlighted that the Contract was signed on
1 June 2024 and the registration period opened on 26 June 2024. Although the registration
period closed on 5 September 2024, and the Player terminated the Contract three days
before, the Chamber noted that for more than two months, the Club failed to take any
action to register the Player with the HNS or to request the ITC.
49. In addition, the Chamber observed that, based on the evidence on file, the Club failed to
reply to the notice of default and did not even argue that it would register the Player before
the closure of the registration period. Also based on the evidence on file, the Player
informed the Club’s President via WhatsApp that they needed to register him through the
TMS and that the Contract was supposed to be sent to the HNS.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17270
50. Moreover, the Chamber pointed out that, although the Player granted the Club four days
in the notice, he terminated the Contract on the seventh day, and during this time, the Club
also failed to comply with the registration.
51. Lastly, the Chamber highlighted that, after the termination, the Player signed a new
contract with his former club, for a salary that represents less than half of the annual value
of the Contract.
52. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the non-registration of the Player constituted
serious misconduct of the Club. The Chamber also added that this non-registration
amounted to a violation of the Player’s right to provide his services, which was furthermore
not disputed by the Club.
53. In fact, and although the Chamber was unimpressed with the short deadline granted by
the Player for the Club to remedy the situation, the Chamber considered that the prejudice
caused to the Player was significant enough to constitute an ultima ratio measure, justifying
the termination of the Contract, according to art. 14 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
54. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
1) Outstanding remuneration
i.
Salaries
55. As the Chamber had already mentioned, the Club failed to provide evidence of having paid
the prorated salary for July 2024 and the full salary for August 2024, which were to be paid
in “10th – 15th in month”. Although the Player requested the two days of the salary for
September 2024 as outstanding, based on the practice of the Football Tribunal, the
Chamber considered the full salary of September as part of the compensation.
56. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the Contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
2,700.
57. In addition, taking into consideration that the Claimant requested interest starting from
the day following the date of the termination for the entire requested amount, the
Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding
amounts as from 3 September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17270
ii.
Amount incurred in fuel and toll costs to attend training sessions
58. The Chamber noted that the Player requested EUR 184,80 on toll costs and EUR 1,323 on
fuel costs, stating that the Club failed to provide him with accommodation, and he was
forced to drive from Rogatec (Slovenia) to Sisak (Croatia) to attend training sessions.
Although the Player requested this amount as part of the compensation, the Chamber
considered that it is actually a request for reimbursement.
59. While it is true that, based on the evidence on file, the Club failed to provide him with
accommodation, the Chamber mentioned that it is also true that the Player did not provide
any evidence to support these calculations. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that
the Player failed to prove (i) that he actually lived in Rogatec, (ii) that the distance between
Rogatec and Sisak is 150 km, (iii) that he attended 21 training sessions, (iv) that he spent
EUR 8.80 per day in tolls, (v) and that he spent an average of EUR 0.21 per km.
60. Hence, the Chamber decided not to award the amounts requested by the Player, due to
the lack of evidence.
2) Compensation
61. 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 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.
62. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the 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 Contract.
63. 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.
64. 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. Considering that the Player
terminated the Contract with just cause on 2 September 2024, and the Contract was valid
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-17270
until 15 July 2026, the Chamber stated that the Contract would have been valid for 22 and
a half more months, had the termination not occurred.
65. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 40,500 (i.e. the residual
value of the Contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
66. 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 consistent 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.
67. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player argued that he mitigated his damages
by EUR 8,500, as he signed two contracts with the Austrian club Oberwart, from 2
September 2024 to 30 June 2025. The Chamber observed that, although both contracts
with this club stipulated that they were amateur contracts, they also established that the
Player was entitled to a monthly gross salary of EUR 850, along with a flat-rate travel and
expense allowance. Based on this, and the Player’s own acknowledgement, the Chamber
concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 8,500 (i.e., EUR
850 times 10).
68. 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 determined that the Player is
not entitled to additional compensation, as the termination was based on his nonregistration and not on overdue payables.
69. 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 32,000 to the Player (i.e., EUR 40,500 minus EUR 8,500), which was to be considered
a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present
matter.
70. 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 3 September 2024 until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-17270
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
74. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
75. 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
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-17270
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Rajko Rep, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, HNK Segesta, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 2,700 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3 September 2024
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 32,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 3
September 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration 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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-17270
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 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. 17