DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13450
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 June 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Javier Rodríguez Rodríguez
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), member
Laurel VAURASI (Fiji), member
CLAIMANT:
Javier Rodríguez Rodríguez, Spain
Represented by Leonardo Carvaiho Biscaro
RESPONDENT:
Altaraji Club, Saudi Arabia
Represented by Sport Makers Law Firm
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13450
I. Facts of the case
1. On 26 April 2023, the Spanish futsal player, Javier Rodríguez Rodríguez (hereinafter: the
Claimant), and the Saudi Arabian club, Altaraji Club (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 26 April 2023 until 26 July
2023.
2. In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter alia
USD 3,000 per month, payable by the end of each month.
3. The Contract did not stipulate any clause concerning the payment of bonuses.
4. At an unspecified date, the parties signed a “Discharge Document” which read as follows:
Final financial clearance
I, the undersigned / JAVIER RODRIGUEZ
(Spanish nationality), holds passport number (PAQ600363) a professional football player in
ALTARAJI saudi Club.
I hereby declare the termination of my contract as a professional player as Esperance Club,
which began on 26/04/2023 and ends on 30/07/2023.
I also acknowledge that I have received from the Saudi ALTARAJI Club all my financial dues due
to me for this contract until the date of expiration on 30/07/2023, whether they are monthly
salaries, bonuses, or any financial benefits for this contract.
I also pledge not to claim any other financial dues from the Saudi ALTARAJI Club, the Saudi
Football Association.
5. By correspondence dated 29 August 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of USD 7,200 representing two months’ salaries (USD 6,000) and six victory
bonuses at USD 200 per victory (USD 1,200) setting a time limit expiring on 13 September
2023 in order to remedy the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6. On 23 January 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13450
a. Position of the Claimant
7. According to the Claimant, the Respondent owes USD 7,200 in overdue payables,
representing two months’ salaries under the Contract and bonuses for six victories.
8. The Claimant argues that pursuant to the Contract, in addition to the monthly salary of USD
3,000 per month, the Respondent committed to, inter alia, paying performance bonuses in
the amount of USD 200 for each victory the team achieved if the Club was promoted to a
higher division of the championship.
9. The Claimant presented a sworn statement in which he testified that he had previously
received a total of SAR 11,157 (approximately USD 2,974.66) and that the Respondent
promised to remit the remaining balance for bonuses and salaries after his arrival in Spain.
10. The Claimant further contends that “upon the Respondent commitment and in accordance with
the [Contract],” within two weeks after the end of the contractual 1-month period, the
Claimant would receive an additional bonus equivalent to one salary plus the bonuses
corresponding to six wins. The Claimant notes that therefore he is entitled to USD 7,200.
11. Additionally, the Claimant notes as follows:
40. With respect to €1.200,00 for the costs of airplane tickets: a. we note the contents of article
17(1) of the FIFA RSTP that includes “other benefits due to the player under the existing contract”;
b. the Club was to arrange and pay for tickets for twice a season for three remaining seasons for
2021, 2022 and 2023;
41. With respect to the €6.600 as bonuses for team victories. we note that article 17 of the
FIFA RSTP allows, in egregious circumstances, the “Additional Compensation” up to a maximum
of six-monthly salarieS. the Player submits that these are “egregious circumstances. the Club has
refused to pay the Player.
12. The Claimant asserts that he provided a default notice to the Respondent on 29 August
2024[sic] but the Respondent alleged the transaction had been completed which did not
correspond with the true events.
13. The Claimant alleges that the Respondent refused to settle the outstanding amounts, and
that the Respondent represented that they had already been paid, when they had not.
14. The Claimant further contends that the Respondent provided no financial evidence of the
transactions.
15. With respect to the Discharge Document, the Claimant argued that the Respondent (1)
coerced the Claimant into signing the Discharge Document as well as promised to pay him
the outstanding payments upon signing the release (and then failed to do so), and (2)
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13450
coerced a former teammate into signing a witness statement attesting that the payment
had been made and the teammate refused.
16. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were as follows:
1. Allowing the Player’s claim stipulating that he terminated the Employment Contract with just
cause.
2. Determining that the Club pays the Player the total amount of $ 7.200,00 (seven thousand
two hundred dollars), as follows:
g.
h.
$6.000,00 (Six Thousand) for overdue two salaries months;
$1.200,00 (One thousand two hundred dollars) as bonuses for team victories;
3. Independently of the type of decision to be issued, the Player requests that the DRC:
a. To fix a sum of 3,000 CHF to be paid by the Club to the Player, to contribute to the
payment of its legal fees and costs; and
b. To order the Club to pay the whole administration costs and fees.
b. Position of the Respondent
17. The Respondent acknowledged the validity of the Contract and the Club’s agreement to pay
to the Player USD 3,000 per month in salaries and claims that it “timely paid to the Player all
his financial dues without any exception.”
18. The Respondent denies agreeing to any additional payments such as bonuses in addition to
the monthly salary of USD 3,000.
19. The Respondent claims that at the end of the Contract, the Claimant signed the Discharge
Document where the Claimant acknowledged receipt of all entitlements from the
Respondent. Specifically, the Respondent cites the following provision, with emphasis
added by the Respondent:
“I also acknowledge that I have received from the Saudi ALTARAJI Club all my financial dues
due to me for this contract until the date of expiration n[sic] 30/07/2023, whether they are
monthly salaries, bonuses, or any financial benefits for this contract.
I also pledge not to claim any other financial dues from the Saudi ALTARAJI Club, the Saudi
Football Association.”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13450
20. The Respondent further notes that a copy of the Discharge Document was not provided by
the Claimant in its submission.
21. The Respondent accuses the Claimant of acting in bad faith for seeking amounts already
received in a timely manner without evidence that another teammate was coerced into
signing the statement in witness that the amounts due were paid to the Claimant. The
Respondent denies coercing the teammate into signing a statement attesting to the
Claimant’s receipt of the Respondent’s payments.
22. The Respondent further notes that the Claimant references an entitlement to bonuses that
are not stipulated in the Contract.
23. Further, the Respondent pointed to contradictions in the Claimant’s statement of claims,
specifically:
a. that the Claimant on one hand claimed he was due USD 7,200 as “an additional
bonus equivalent to one salary, plus 6 victories and other bonuses” within two weeks
following the end of the contractual one-month period;
b. that the USD 7,200 constituted two unpaid salaries plus bonuses of winning six
matches;
c. that the USD 6,000 amount is due as compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations;
d. that the EUR 1,200 represented costs of airplane tickets that were not paid by the
Respondent; and
e. that EUR 6,600 representing bonuses for team victories was due as “Additional
compensation in egregious circumstances.
24. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following:
1. To reject the Player’s Claim in its entirety.
2. To condemn the Claimant to pay an amount of USD 10,000 (ten thousand US Dollars) to the
Respondent as contribution to its legal fees.
c. Replica of the Claimant
25. On 27 February 2024 the FIFA general secretariat invited the Claimant to provide its
comments on the latest correspondence of the Respondent by no later than 5 March 2024.
26. On 14 March 2024, the Claimant filed its rejoinder.
27. On 17 May 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the late rejoinder
filed by the Claimant, informed the Claimant that it would not be considered in line with art.
11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and closed the investigation-phase of the proceedings.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13450
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. 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 23 January 2024 and submitted for
decision on 19 June 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023
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.
29. 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 June 2024 edition, the Chamber is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Spanish futsal player and a Saudi
Arabian club.
30. Thereafter, the Chamber noted that the Contract contained a jurisdiction clause, declaring
the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Saudi Arabian Futsal Federation competent to
settle disputes that arise between the parties in connection with the Contract. However,
the Chamber further noted that its competence was not disputed. Consequently, the
Chamber observed that it is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
31. 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 (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 February 2023, the May 2023 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
32. 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
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13450
33. 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
34. 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 Respondent owed
any outstanding remuneration to the Claimant.
35. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine what
remuneration was agreed to between the parties as well as the validity of the Discharge
Document.
36. It is undisputed that the parties signed a valid employment agreement, effective from 26
April 2023 until 26 July 2023, wherein the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant USD
3,000 per month, payable by the Respondent at the end of each month.
37. While there is documented support that the Respondent committed to pay USD 3,000 per
month in salary, the Claimant does not provide any evidence, other than his sworn
statement, supporting his claim that he was owed an additional USD 200 per victory for an
additional total of USD 1,200, or an extra bonus equivalent to one month’s salary if the
team was promoted to a higher division, for an additional total of USD 3,000,.
38. The Chamber thus concluded that the evidence provided did not support an additional
award for USD 1,200 or USD 3,000 in bonuses.
39. The Chamber then turned to the evidence provided by the Respondent and noted that the
Respondent did not provide any records of financial transactions paid to the Claimant.
40. The Chamber further took note that the only proof advanced by the Respondent that it met
its financial obligations to the Claimant was the Discharge Document.
41. The Discharge Document, however, did not provide a date of execution and states only that
the Claimant attests receiving all financial amounts due to him through 30 July 2023,
whether salaries, bonuses, or any other benefits under “this contract.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13450
42. Furthermore, the Discharge Document made reference to the termination of a contract as
follows: “I hereby declare the termination of my contract as a professional player at Esperance
Club, which began on 26/04/2023 and ends on 30/07/2023” (emphasis added).
43. The Chamber noted that it was unclear whether Esperance Club is a reference to the
Respondent, as this name did not appear in the Contract.
44. Additionally, the Chamber observed that the Discharge Document referenced an end date
of 30 July 2023, whereas the Contract at the basis of the claim expired on 26 July 2023.
45. The Chamber determined that, in light of the foregoing, the Discharge Document presented
sufficient ambiguity to conclude it could not be considered the governing document with
regard to any residual remuneration owed by the Respondent to the Claimant.
46. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent failed to provide proof
that it met its payment obligation (cf. art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
47. The Claimant requested that the Chamber allow its claim “stipulating that [the Claimant]
terminated [the Contract] with just cause.”
48. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that their task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
49. 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).
50. The Chamber took note that the default notice had been sent after the term of the Contract
had already concluded.
51. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant art. 14bis of the Regulations did not apply
to the case at hand.
52. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without
a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the
Regulations.
53. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Claimant put the Respondent on notice of
default in the amounts sought in its request for relief, which had fallen due more than 30
days before, and granted the Respondent a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13450
54. Accordingly, the Chamber confirmed that the Respondent had delayed a due payment
without a prima facia contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis
of the Regulations was met in the case at hand.
55. The Chamber further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has
competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. On account of the above and bearing
in mind that this is the first offense by the club within the last two years, the Chamber
decided to impose a warning on the club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the
Regulations.
56. In this connection, the Chamber highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as
an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
57. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of the Respondent’s failure to pay the outstanding
remuneration.
58. 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 two salaries
under the contract, amounting to USD 6,000.
59. 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., USD
6,000 (two monthly salaries of USD 3,000).
60. The Claimant did not request any interest on the outstanding amounts. Therefore, the
Chamber will not award any interest in this matter.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
61. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13450
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13450
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Javier Rodríguez Rodríguez, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Altaraji Club, must pay to the Claimant the following amount:
- USD 6,000 as outstanding remuneration.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A Warning is imposed on the Respondent.
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
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13450
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 13