Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5451
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 4 August 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Daniel
García Rodríguez
COMPOSITION:
ONGARO Omar (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
TIMERA Khadija (Senegal), member
VAURASI Laurel (Fiji), member
CLAIMANT:
Daniel Garcia Rodríguez, Spain
Represented by Guillermo López Arana & Jesús Manuel Ortega Calderón
RESPONDENT:
BGPU, Thailand
Represented by Eleven & Law
Page 2
REF FPSD-5451
I. Facts of the case
1. On 27 July 2015, the Spanish player Daniel García Rodríguez (hereinafter: the Claimant
or the player) and the Thai club BGPU (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) concluded
an employment agreement valid from 1 August 2015 until 31 December 2017.
2. In or around December 2017, the parties signed a new employment agreement valid
from 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2019.
3. On 28 October 2019, the parties signed a new employment contract valid from
1 January 2020 until 30 November 2021 (hereinafter: the Contract).
4. Art. 5.3 of the Contract reads as follows:
“From 1 July 2020, BGPU shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement prematurely
compensation of 3 (three) month salary. The Player agrees that the above net indemnity is
just and fair and compensate the damage caused by the Club.”
5. Art. 7 of the Contract
“The agreement is governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Thailand and the
Parties agree to submit to the Thai Courts.”
6. Art. 1 of Appendix 1 of the Contract states that
“BGPU agrees to pay to the Player a monthly salary (the "Wage") at the rate of THB 526,316.
The Parties acknowledge that the Wage include a withholding tax of THB 26,316.
The Player will receive the Wage at THB 500,000 net per month.”
7. Between 15 December 2020 and 21 December 2020, the parties (allegedly) signed a
document extending the employment relationship until 30 April 2023 (hereinafter: the
extension).
8. On 21 December 2020, the Player was temporarily transferred to Samut Prakan City
(hereinafter: Samut) until 30 April 2021.
9. On 20 April 2021, the parties signed a document (hereinafter: the Authorization) which
stated inter alia that:
“BGPU hereby expressly and irrevocably pledges to immediately release Mr. Daniel Garcia
Rodriguez from his employment contract with BGPU, so he can freely accept any of the
received employment offers from other football clubs.
Page 3
REF FPSD-5451
BGPU and Mr. Garcia shall sign the appropriate agreement of mutual termination of the
employment contract between BGPU and Mr. Daniel Garcia Rodriguez, and hereby
irrevocably commits to pay Mr. Garcia the amount equal to three (3) monthly salaries, and
Mr. Garcia commit to release and fully discharges any and all claims against BGPU following
the singing of the abovementioned termination agreement.”
10. On 25 May 2021, the Respondent replies to an unsubmitted previous correspondence
of the Claimant, rejecting the extension until April 2023 and attaching the draft of a
settlement agreement to be signed by the Claimant.
11. On 1 June 2021, the Claimant replied reiterating that the Contract had been extended
notwithstanding the lack of signature by the Club.
12. On 16 June 2021, the Respondent restated its position and argued that the employment
ended in May 2021.
13. On 6 July 2021, the Claimant replied stating that the Respondent behave with bad faith.
14. On 27 July 2021, the Respondent stated that the parties have mutually and tacitly
terminated their employment relationship by the end of May 2021.
15. On 3 September 2021, the Thai FA rejected the issuance of the International Transfer
Certificate (ITC) adducing that according to its records the contract was due to expire
on 30 November 2021.
16. On 30 July 2021, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Spanish club
Guijuelo valid from date of signature until 30 May 2022 with a monthly salary of
EUR 1,700.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
17. On 14 March 2022, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
18. The Claimant states that on December 2020, the club showed the player its interest in
renewing the contractual link until April 2023 as well as the will to go on loan for four
(4) months to Samut, both reasons for which BGFC summons the player on
9 December 2020.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5451
19. The Claimant states that on 15 December 2020 the Club Manager requested him to go
to the office to sign the new renewal contract.
20. However, the Claimant adduces that the Respondent during all his contractual
negotiations acted in bad faith, not giving copies of contracts signed and, in this regard,
“the club intends to continue with its usual abuse of power: it wants the player to come on
the same day to sign the contract”.
21. Finally, and “only at the express request of the player, they send him via Line the contract to
be signed between the parties.”
22. The Claimant submits that the following day, he sent the contract extension signed by
him, thus confirming the agreement to extend the relationship until 30 April 2023, as
established in article 1 of the contract and in his view, “the renewal agreement is
concluded”.
23. The Claimant deemed that the contractual extension “must be considered as a fully valid
agreement, as the singularities of the agreement show the confluence of the elements that
a contractual agreement must have in order to bind the parties and be fully effective
between them”.
24. From the foregoing, the Claimant understands to be “uncontested that the necessary
elements constituting the "essentialia negotii" are unequivocally present in the renewal
contract, which BGFC sent to the player for signature.”
25. Furthermore, the Claimant considers “undisputed fact that the player received, on
15 December 2020, a contract renewal contract with a duration until 30 April 2023 and that
the player agreed to be bound by the only channel of communication he has with the club i.e. instant messaging (in this case Line) - and, subsequently, forwarded the contract also
signed by him as a sign of full agreement.”
26. In the view of the Claimant, the Respondent has acknowledged that, at the very least,
the forwarding of such a document must be considered as an offer made by the club
itself
(i) The club draws up, on its own account, the document.
(ii) The club sends it to the player. The club summons the player to sign the contract.
27. The Claimant argues that “the club has intentionally created legitimate expectations in the
player” that both parties wished to extend the relationship.
28. The Claimant states that “the doctrine of culpa in contrahendo as applied to the present
dispute necessarily leads us to conclude that BGFC is inescapably liable for those damages
caused to the Claimant by breaching the terms and conditions of the agreed documents”.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5451
29. The Claimant further states that the Respondent rejected the application for the ITC
requested after he signed with his new club, CD Guijuelo. The Claimant states that the
club's argument for the rejection is that “the parties mutually terminated the employment
relationship. However, they request that the player sign the mutual termination agreement
for the granting of the CTI.”
30. The claimant concludes that he is entitled to compensation. In this regard, he deems
that “Clause 5.3 must therefore be considered absolutely inapplicable to the present dispute
as
it was not configured as a penalty to compensate for termination without just cause (which
has occurred) and
it was not properly exercised as the buyout clause that it is.”
31. The Claimant filed the following requests for relief:
“It is determined that BGFC and Daniel Garcia were contractually bound until 30 April 2023.
It is determined that BGFC has unilaterally and without just cause terminated the
Employment Agreement and thereby any employment relationship.
A decision is issued ordering BGFC to the following:
2.1 To pay Daniel Garcia the amount of THB 11,500,000.00 (BAHT) NET by way of
compensation ex. art. 17.1 RETJ FIF A and art. 337c. Swiss Code of Obligations;
2.1.1 In the alternative, in the event that this Chamber does not consider that the bond was
extended until 30 April 2023, order him to pay
(i) as compensation the remaining economic value of the Employment Contract until 30
November 2021, i.e. THB 3,000,000.00 (BAHT) NET; and
(ii) in application of the legal principle "Culpa in Contrahendo" a compensation for damages
caused by the breach of contractual good faith in the amount of THB 8,500,000.00 (BAHT)
NET.
2.2 To pay to Daniel Garcia the gross-up applicable to such net amounts or to declare that
any compensation awarded shall be deemed to be "net of any tax" or to require BGFC to
provide the player with the relevant tax certificates exempting him from any claim by the tax
authorities.
2.3 To pay Daniel Garcia an extra amount to be determined by this Dispute Resolution
Chamber taking into account the specificity of this case.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5451
2.4 To grant the application of an interest rate of five percent (5%) per annum to any amount
awarded, from 25 May 2021, the date on which BGFC terminated the Employment Contract
without valid or justified cause, until its effective and full payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent
32. The Respondent replied to the claim stating that by the end of 2020 both parties were
negotiating a (i.) a loan to Samut until end of the 2020 season and (ii.) a possible
extension of contract. However, parties “did not come to an agreement concerning any
extension and negotiations where postponed until after the season”.
33. The Respondent deems “a mystery how one can base a FIFA case on smiley in Thai which
clearly is a morning greeting sent by a personal assistant without any proxy and try to
convince the FIFA Tribunal for it to be the full acceptance of an employment contract”.
34. The Respondent deems that the Claimant continues within 40 pages of allegations has
not provided any concise evidence of the extension of the contract. The Club once again
“formally contests to have ever read and/or agreed on the requested terms for extension, let
alone explicitly confirmed on any new extension and/or full employment agreement”.
35. The Respondent states that parties wished to split ways and thus on 20 April 2021, the
Player requested an authorization from the Club "to seek and negotiate new employment
opportunities with football clubs across the globe with the view of being immediately hired
by one of such football clubs".
36. In the Respondent’s view, at that time the employment contract was therefore tacitly
terminated.
37. The Respondent challenges the competence of the FIFA Tribunal based on following
clear contractual wording of Article 7.
38. The Respondent states that by signing the Authorization the Player has explicitly and
unconditionally waived his right to submit any claim against the club.
39. The Respondent refers to the instant messaging conversation between the Club
Manager and the Player, and states that “it is impossible for the Player to pretend that Mr.
K. did have authority to act and bind the Club. On several occasions Mr. K. clarified that he
had to check with “his boss” referring to the board of directors as set out above. The Player
was aware of this as he explicitly requested a meeting to discuss the terms with “Mr. Pavin
(Bhiromnhakdi) and Mr. Piyasak (Bhumichtra). In other words, everybody was aware that
Mr. K. did not have any proxy and therefore the provided conversation with Mr. K. allegedly
proving the extension cannot be accepted as it does not prove anything.”
Page 7
REF FPSD-5451
40. In the Respondent’s view, “there is no evidence, let alone acceptance or even a conversation
between the Player and anyone with the proxy to make this decision inside the Club”. Hence
the Respondent supports that “the FIFA Tribunal will conclude that:
-
Parties seem to have initiated negotiations but never came to a vis-à-vis acceptance
on the terms;
The Player, without a doubt, rejected the content of an unverified offer;
Mr. K. informed the Player that he would transmit this to the Club and later informed
the Player that the Club rejected the content of a unverified counter-offer;
The Player explicitly accepted and confirmed that there was no deal concerning the
extension;
Parties decided to stop the negotiations and the Player left on loan based on existing
contract and terms with no further reference to any extension.”
41. The Respondent concludes that based on the behavior of both Player as Club and the
documentation on file, the parties have mutually and tacitly terminated their
employment relationship by the end of April 2021. In particular:
-
-
The explicit and unilateral request of the Player to look for another employer and his
absence after that at the Club;
The request to the HR office of the Club dd. 10 June 2021 to provide the Player with
proof of employment and income until May 2021 for your local international
transfers and tax authorities;
The return of the car by the end of June 2021 without any further comments;
The Player leaving Thailand by the end of June 2021 without any request for flights
or transportation compensation to the Club.
42. As for the request for damages, the Respondent submits that the SFT requires the
claiming party to prove that it suffered a damage, and that the Claimant has failed to
demonstrate that he has suffered any damage.
43. The Respondent filed the following requests for relief:
“1. To pronounce the claim of Daniel Garcia Rodriguez inadmissible.
In alternative :
2. To fully dismiss the claim of Mr. Daniel Garcia Rodriguez.
3. To fully dismiss any demand for sportive sanctions.
Absolutely subsidiary:
Page 8
REF FPSD-5451
4. Order BGPU to the payment of a maximum of 3-months worth of salary compensation
with a pro-rata deduction of the payments upon termination;”
c. Replica of the Claimant
44. The Claimant insists on the competence of FIFA.
45. The Claimant deems “reasonable to think that the elements that converge in the present case
are more than sufficient to understand that this Chamber has jurisdiction, in addition to taking
into account the risk and legal uncertainty that would be represented by going to the Thai
courts, in a case that is - to say the least - ambiguous as to the submission to Thai law and in
which, precisely, the club's basis for termination (and which it could only allege) is a FIFA
pronouncement and not a Thai precept. Such a basis should therefore be examined in this case
by the same Chamber that decided that issue, and not by a Thai court. “
46. The Claimant states that the alleged "lack of evidence" in his claim comes from the fact
that he has very “few documents to prove the club-player relationship. But this is precisely due
to the "modus operandi" of the club “
47. The Claimant considers that the club's consent to the extension is “pre-granted with the
sending of the employment contract, the request to come and sign, and by virtue of the club's
own acts.”
48. The Claimant concludes that “the club violated the principles of good faith and trust in the
negotiations, when it asked a player to come to sign the contract, sent him the contract, and at
no time did it retract anything, until it seemed to achieve its objective: that the player would
leave on loan, lowering his cost because the third club assumed part of the salary. A palpable
and intolerable bad faith that has led to the present scenario”.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
49. The Respondent insists on the competence of the Thai courts.
50. The Respondent deems that the Player has explicitly and unconditionally waived his right
to submit any claim against the Club with the signature of the Authorization.
51. The Respondent concludes that the “unverified conversation between persons without any
mandate can never be accepted as sufficient prove for the high amount which the Player claims.
We honestly have no idea how we can conclude that the Player is addressed to sign an extension
agreement in this conversation.
52. It further states that “An acceptance of this transcript as sufficient evidence would surely create
a dangerous precedent creating legal insecurity for both Clubs as Players”.
Page 9
REF FPSD-5451
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
53. 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 14 March 2022
and submitted for decision on 4 August 2022. Taking into account the wording of art.
34 of the July 2022 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules
is applicable to the matter at hand.
54. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022 edition), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Spanish player and a Thai club.
55. The Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent, on the one hand, contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause 7 of the contract, alleging
that the competent body to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant
employment contract are the Thai courts. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that
the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to adjudicate the claim.
56. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with
art. 22 par. 1 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear employment-related
disputes between a player and a club with an international dimension “without prejudice
to the right of any player (…) or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment
related disputes”.
57. In the present matter, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant and the Respondent
had decided that any dispute that would arise from the contract would be submitted
to the Thai courts.
58. The Chamber recalled that parties may freely agree to give jurisdiction to a civil court,
and that such choice shall always prevail. However, the Chamber, recalling its
jurisprudence as well as the CAS jurisprudence in this regard, highlighted that for a
choice of law to be valid, it must be specific as to which local courts the parties are in
agreement to submit their disputes to.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5451
59. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that it was competent to hear the
dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent, and consequently declared the
claim admissible.
60. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 March 2022, the March 2022
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
61. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis
of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
62. 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
63. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the extension of the
Contract and its termination.
64. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the dispute between the parties lay on
the answers to the following points:
-
Was the Contract mutually extended on 15 December 2020?
Was the Contract terminated by either party?
In the affirmative, was the termination with or without just cause?
Page 11
REF FPSD-5451
65. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber noted that the parties’ first
fundamental disagreement is whether the document allegedly concluded between the
parties in December 2020 can be considered as a valid and binding extension of the
Contract.
66. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber started by recalling its well-established
jurisprudence which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be
considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the
employee, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as
the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship
and the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
67. In casu, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Chamber concluded
that all such elements were included in the document filed in question which consisted
of the amendment of the contractual term of the employment relationship, maintaining
the remaining contractual provisions unchanged.
68. On the one hand, the DRC noted that the Claimant argues that the Contract was
extended until 30 April 2023. Moreover, the Claimant states that the Respondent failed
to give him the extension back signed. Thus, the Claimant relies on a conversation with
the Club manager which invited him to sign the extension and on the fact that the Club
sent the draft of the said document for him to review. The Claimant further states that
the extension was the reason why he accepted to be loaned out to Samut. On its side,
the DRC noted that the Respondent sustains that the said extension was never
executed and that the adduced evidence is not sufficient to entail the claimed
consequences.
69. Having noted the above, the Chamber proceeded with the analysis of the facts and
evidence on file, and it deemed relevant to highlight the following points:
-
-
On 15 December 2020, the Respondent sent the draft of the Contract extension
to the Claimant via instant message.
On 20 December 2020, the Claimant sent the extension back signed.
On 21 December 2020, the Respondent states “we will talk on your extension in
April as soon as you finish loan” and the Claimant states “OK with going on loan but
we had an agreement on contract extension”.
On the same day the Claimant states “as agreed with President in our personal
Meeting and later sent by you, I will have extension agreement signed back”.
70. In line with the foregoing, the Chamber referred to the behaviour of the parties. On the
one hand, the Claimant always had between December 2020 and May 2021 defended
that the contract extension had taken place. On the other hand, the Respondent deems
that the extension was not finalized without any further reasoning or explanation.
Page 12
REF FPSD-5451
71. In this regard, the Chamber deliberated that by sending the extension drafted by the
Respondent itself and, taking into account that the Player returned the signed copy of
the said extension 21 December 2020, which is not in dispute, the consent and
intention of the parties to extend their employment relationship can be established.
The intention of the Respondent and the Claimant to expand their employment
relationship was deemed to be clear by the DRC.
72. Thus, the Chamber was comfortable in its position that the Contract was validly
extended until 30 April 2023.
73. The Chamber emphasised that if the Respondent had withdrawn its interest in
extending the contractual relationship, it did so after its consent to the extension had
been validly given and therefore after binding agreement between the parties had been
perfected.
74. Bearing in mind the aforementioned considerations, the Contract was due to expire on
30 April 2023. Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded to determine whether any of the
parties had terminated the Contract and if such termination was with or without just
cause.
75. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the Respondent’s correspondence of
25 May 2021. In the said correspondence the Respondent stated that the Claimant was
no longer employed and was enclosed the draft of a “mutual termination agreement” to
be signed by the Claimant yet sent unsigned by the Respondent.
76. The Chamber deems that based on the said correspondence the Respondent
terminated the Contract. Moreover, the DRC observed that the said correspondence
did not include any justification for the termination of the employment.
77. On account of the aforementioned, the Chamber decided that the club had unlawfully
terminated the Contract with the player and should be held liable for such breach.
ii. Consequences
78. 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
Respondent.
79. The Chamber observed that there was no outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination.
80. 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
Page 13
REF FPSD-5451
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.
81. 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.
82. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the wording of clause 5.3 of the Contract,
which established that:
“From 1 July 2020, BGPU shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement prematurely
compensation of 3 (three) month salary. The Player agrees that the above net indemnity is
just and fair and compensate the damage caused by the Club.”.
83. After analysing the content of the aforementioned clause, the Chamber concluded that
it did not fulfil the criteria of reciprocity and proportionality, in line with the Chamber’s
longstanding jurisprudence, and therefore could not be taken into account for
establishing the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant. In particular, the
Chamber noted that the said clause was not reciprocal, since solely allowed the
Respondent to terminate the contract. Moreover, the Chamber found that the amount
of compensation to be paid to the Claimant was not proportionate vis-a-vis the residual
value of the Contract.
84. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Claimant to the Respondent 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.
85. 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 on 30 April
2023. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of THB 11,500,000 (i.e.
the THB 500,000 * 23 months) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5451
86. 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.
87. Indeed, the player found employment with Guijuelo. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to the total remuneration of EUR 17,000.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of THB 625,819, considering the currency conversion at the date of the
decision.
88. 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 said
provision is not applicable in the case at hand.
89. 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 THB 10,874,181 to the player (i.e. THB 11,500,000 minus THB 625,819), which
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
90. 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.
91. Ultimately, the Chamber determined that the Respondent shall be ordered to provide
the Claimant with the relevant certificate attesting the payment of taxes to the
competent authorities in the amounts awarded in this decision.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
92. 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.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5451
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. 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
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 16
REF FPSD-5451
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Daniel García Rodríguez, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, BGPU, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount(s):
- THB 10,874,181 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 14 March 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
The Respondent is ordered to provide the Claimant with the relevant certificate attesting
the payment of taxes to the competent authorities in the amounts under point 2 above.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this
decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration 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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17
REF FPSD-5451
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 18