Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-17703
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 13 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Carlos
Andres Salazar Michileno
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khalid AWAD ALTHEBITY (Saudi Arabia), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Carlos Andres Salazar Michileno, Colombia
Represented by Studio Civale
RESPONDENT:
Iraqi Air Force Club, Iraq
Represented by Aymen Larguet
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-17703
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 August 2024, the Colombian player Carlos Andres Salazar Michileno (hereinafter: the
Player or the Claimant) and Iraqi club Air Force Club "Air Force" (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from
17 August 2024 until 31 July 2025.
2.
Pursuant to the Schedule 1 to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player the total
sum of USD 290,000, payable as follows:
•
•
•
3.
30% “of the contract value after signing the [C]ontract”;
35% “of the value of the contract between the two stages”; and
35% “of the contract after the end of the football season”.
Clause 3 of the same Schedule 1 to the Contract provided:
“Taxes / Social Contribution
The Player’s income refers to net amounts in the State of Iraq.
Any taxes, social costs, contributions or any other amounts the Player may need to pay
in the country of his residence or any other country are to be borne by the Player and the
Club insofar shall not be obliged to pay any additional amounts to the Player as those
agreed upon in this Contract”.
4.
Furthermore, Article 9 of the Contract provided inter alia as follows:
“Article 9 – Termination by the Club or the Player
[…] 6. This Contract may be terminated by either party, without consequences for the terminating
party, where there exists just cause at the time of the contract termination.
The following situations are deemed to be considered a just cause to terminate the
Contract (non-exhaustive list):
a) Any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or
change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (the player or the club)
to terminate the contract with just cause.
b) In case of the Club unlawfully failing to pay the Player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the Player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate the
Contract, provided he has put the Club in default in writing and has granted a
deadline of at least 15 days for the Club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s)
[…]”.
5.
On 11 November 2024, the Player sent the Club a notice of default, demanding payment
of USD 87,000, representing the first 30% of his remuneration under the Contract, which
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-17703
should have been paid on 6 August 2024. The Player requested that the Club remedied the
breach within 15 days.
6.
On 28 November 2024, the Player reiterated his request for payment, stating that if no
payment was received within the next 24 hours, he would terminate the Contract for just
cause.
7.
On 2 December 2024, the Player confirmed that no payment had been received and
therefore notified the Club of the termination of the Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 7 January 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
9.
The Player claimed that he has never been paid since the start of his employment with the
Club. He referred to the two notices of default and claimed that the Club has never
responded or paid any amounts.
10. As a result, the Player claimed that he terminated the Contract with just cause on the basis
of art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations) and therefore that the Club should be liable to the consequences thereof.
11. In particular, the Player requested to be awarded:
•
USD 87,000 net as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7
August 2024; and
•
USD 203,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 3 December 2024.
12. The Player’s requests for relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“For all the above reasons and for those which may be further added during this
procedure, and reserving the right to modify the following requests in a supplement of
the Claim in case the Players' Status Department grants to file it, the Claimant respectfully
requests the following:
a. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the overdues in the amount of USD 87,000
- NET OF TAXES - as first instalment that was to be paid upon signing the contract on 6
August 2024;
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-17703
b. Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant the compensation for breach of contract in
the amount of USD 203,000 equals to the remaining value of the contract;
c. Order the Club to pay interest in favour of the Player at rate of 5% per year on each of
the above amounts due to the Player, calculated as indicated at para. 43 above;
d. Apply the measures and sporting sanctions established by the FIFA Regulations on
Status and Transfer of Players, namely the ban of 2 transfer windows;
e. Apply any other measures it considers necessary in decision of the case at stake”.
b. Position of the Club
13. On 8 January 2025, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to provide its position on
the Player’s claim by no later than 28 January 2025.
14. On 13 January 2025, the Club replied as follows, quoted verbatim:
“We refer to the claim submitted by Mr. Carlos Andres regarding his contract with our
club, Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya (Air Force Club), and we hereby provide our formal response to
his Allegations.
First and foremost, we categorically reject the validity of the player’s claim. The club
remains fully committed to fulfilling its contractual obligations, including the payment of
30% of the total contract value, amounting to $290,000. Despite our readiness to
disburse the agreed-upon amount, Mr. Andres refused to accept the payment. His refusal
was driven by his knowledge of the club’s intention to amicably terminate his contract
due to the technical staff’s dissatisfaction with his performance, as well as that of several
other players.
On the same day that discussions regarding mutual termination were held, Mr. Andres
unexpectedly left the club premises without obtaining prior approval from the coaching
staff. Furthermore, he departed covertly to another city, accompanied by other players
who were also slated for release. Despite our attempts to contact the players, Mr. Andres
remained adamant in demanding full payment of his contract while refusing to return
to the club, thereby causing significant harm to our organization.
It is important to note that all other players involved in similar discussions reached
amicable settlements and received their full entitlements in accordance with the agreedupon terms. However, Mr. Andres, upon learning of the club’s intention to release him,
sought to exploit the situation by leaving the team and later making a baseless demand
for the full contract amount, despite his departure being voluntary and without proper
authorization.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-17703
Given these facts, it is unreasonable and unjustifiable for a player whose contract
termination was proposed by the coaching staff to demand full payment of his contract
while refusing a reasonable and amicable settlement.
In conclusion, we reiterate our willingness to pay the 30% of the contract value as per
the original agreement. However, we firmly reject the player’s claims for the full contract
amount, as they lack legal and factual merit.
We trust that this response will clarify our position, and we remain available to provide
any further information or documentation required to resolve this matter”.
15. On 30 January 2025, the Club submitted a power of attorney and requested that his legal
representative be granted access to this case.
16. Also on 30 January 2025, the Club’s legal representative was registered in the FIFA Legal
Portal.
17. On 31 January 2025, the Club’s legal representative requested a deadline extension to
submit a response to the claim.
18. Also on 31 January 2025, the FIFA general secretariat informed that a deadline extension
could only be granted before the time limit had expired. As a result, the parties were
informed that the submission-phase in this matter had been closed and that any
unsolicited correspondence would be disregarded.
c. Updated employment situation of the Player
19. On 31 January 2025, the FIFA general secretariat asked the Player to confirm his
employment situation from the alleged termination of the Contract until that date.
20. On 3 February 2025, the Player informed the FIFA general secretariat that he had signed a
new employment agreement with the Salvadoran club Alianza Fútbol Club on 17 December
2024 (hereinafter: the Salvadoran Contract).
21. The Salvadoran Contract was valid for a period of one year, from 8 January 2025 until 22
December 2025. Furthermore, the Player is entitled to a total remuneration of USD 37,500
gross plus an allowance of USD 20,000.
22. Along with the copy of the Salvadoran Contract, the Player also stated that:
•
Given that the Salvadoran Contract would only be valid from 8 January 2025 to
22 December 2025, the overlap of 7 months should be considered for the
purpose of mitigation;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-17703
•
The Player was entitled to salaries amounting to USD 37,500 gross for the entire
period, which converted into USD 30,000 net after deducting the 20% withholding
tax applied in El Salvador; and
•
As a result, the mitigated compensation amounted to USD 17,500, which should
still be accrued with additional compensation up to 3- or 6-months’ salary.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. 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 7 January 2025 and submitted for decision on
13 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the January 2025 edition of
the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
24. 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 an Colombian player and a Iraqi club.
25. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC 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
26. 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
27. 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-17703
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
28. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a claim
for breach of contract submitted by the Player against the Club.
29. The DRC first observed that the Player terminated the Contract on 2 December 2024,
stating that the Club had failed to pay the 30% of his remuneration due at the signing of
the Contract.
30. Second, the Chamber noted that the Club, on the other hand, did not dispute that the
aforesaid amount was outstanding, but alleged that the Player had refused himself to
collect the money and had rejected the proposed settlement.
31. In this context, the DRC recognised that its task was to determine whether the Player had
just cause to terminate the Contract and the consequences thereof.
A. THE TERMINATION
32. As a starting point, the Chamber acknowledged that the Parties do not dispute that (i) the
Player was owed 30% at the time of signing the Contract; and (ii) this amount has not been
paid by the Club.
33. In particular, the Club claimed that it tried to make the payment to the Player, but he
refused to accept it. However, the Chamber found it essential that the Club – as the debtor
and, consequently, the party who held the burden of proving that it complied with its
financial obligation – failed to provide any evidence to support this position.
34. Similarly, the Club did not provide any document to support a proposal (let alone an
acceptance) of any settlement.
35. The DRC found that the case file only supported that a substantial part of the Player’s
remuneration had been outstanding for more than 3 months (i.e., 30% of the Contract; as
from 18 August until the 2 December 2024), and that the Player warned the Club twice, but
to no avail.
36. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that the Club confirmed in its response to the claim
that it intended to prematurely terminate the Contract.
37. In light of the above, the Chamber was satisfied that the Player terminated the Contract
with just cause based on art. 14bis, par. 2 of the Regulations. The DRC was further
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-17703
compelled by this conclusion in considering that it was also in line with Article 10 of the
Contract insofar as 30% of the Player’s entire remuneration exceeded 2 monthly salaries
and the Club failed to remedy the default within the 15 days’ deadline.
B. THE CONSEQUENCES
38. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the question of the consequences of such
unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
39. First, the Chamber found that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
together with the Player’s specific requests for relief, amounted to USD 87,000 net (i.e., 30%
of the Contract value), which the DRC decided to award to the Player in accordance with
the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda.
40. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest at the rate of
5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the day following the date of signing (i.e., 7
August 2024) until the date of effective payment.
41. 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.
42. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
43. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Club to the Player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
44. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of USD 203,000 net (i.e., the remaining 70% of the Contract)
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-17703
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
45. 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.
46. Indeed, the Player found employment with Alianza Fútbol Club. In accordance with the
Salvadoran Contract, the Player was entitled to a remuneration of USD 37,500 and to an
allowance of USD 20,000 over the course of 12 months (i.e., USD 57,500 in total).
47. The DRC also explained that:
•
The Player has provided evidence, and the Club has not disputed that the
Salvadoran Contract is subject to 20% withholding tax, which the Chamber decided
to take into account in the calculation, given that the remuneration was determined
in the Contract net of taxes;
•
The USD 20,000 accommodation allowance shall also be considered in the
calculation insofar as it was fixed in the Salvadoran Contract and represented a
significant part of the Player’s compensation;
•
The mitigation shall nevertheless be prorated only for the overlapping period
between January and July 2025 (i.e., 7 months); and
•
In conclusion, the mitigation amounted to approx. USD 26,833.
48. 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 at least three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables.
49. In the case at hand, the first Chamber confirmed that the Contract termination took place
due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the Club, and therefore decided that the Player
should – in principle – be entitled to USD 72,500 net as additional compensation, namely
the full remuneration under the Contract prorated for 3 months.
50. The Chamber stressed however that per art. 17 of the Regulations the total amount of
compensation awarded (including additional compensation) cannot exceed the residual
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-17703
value of the original contract. Hence, in casu, the Chamber decided to award the same USD
26,833 net to the Player as additional compensation.
51. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club must pay to the Player the amount
of USD 203,000 net (i.e., USD 203,000 minus USD 26,833 plus USD 26,833), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
52. Lastly, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Football Tribunal in this regard, the DRC decided to award the Player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the Contract termination (i.e., 3
December 2024) until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
56. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
57. 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.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-17703
d. Costs
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-17703
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Carlos Andres Salazar Michileno, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Iraqi Air Force Club "Air Force", must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- USD 87,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 August
2024 until the date of effective payment; and
- USD 203,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from
3 December 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. 13
REF. FPSD-17703
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. 14