Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13358
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 8 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Daisuke
Sato
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (France & USA), Deputy Chairperson
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
Calum BEATTIE (Scotland), Member
CLAIMANT/ COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Daisuke Sato, Philippines
Represented by Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT/ COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Persib Bandung, Indonesia
Represented by Vitus Derungs
INTERVENING PARTY:
PFFACW, Philippines
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13358
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 6 December 2022, the Filipino player, Daisuke Sato (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant/ Counter- Respondent), and the Indonesian club, Persib Bandung (hereinafter: the
Club or the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant) entered into an employment contract
(hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 June 2023 until 31 May 2025.
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player inter alia the
following remuneration:
“The contract value for the Term from 1 June 2023 until 31 May 2024 shall be Rp. 2.160.000.000;
(Two Billions One Hundred Sixty Millions Rupiah) (hereinafter referred to as “Contract Value
2023”), which will be paid in Player’s monthly salary in the amount of Rp. 180.000.000,- (One
Hundred Eighty Millions Rupiah) will be paid every month with total 12 (twelve) months,
proportionally, of which shall be deemed as the Player’s monthly salary.
This contract value for the Term from 1 June 2024 until 31 May 2025 shall be Rp. 2,500,000,000,(Two Billions Two Hundred Fifty Millions Rupiah) (hereinafter referred to as “Contract Value
2024”), which will be paid in Player’s monthly salary in the amount of RP. 187.500.000,- (One
Hundred Eighty Seven Millions Five Hundred Thousand Rupiah) will be paid every month with
total 12 (twelve) months, proportionally, of which shall be deemed as the Player’s monthly
salary.”
3.
By correspondence dated 1 December 2023, the Player put the Club in default, inter alia,
stipulating the following:
“Mr. Daisuke Caumanday Sato requests to PT. Persib Bandung Bermartabat Club to provide the
Player with the necessary conditions for sports participation, as well as effective participation in
training, and in official matches, as well as other preparatory or instrumental activities of sports
competition, with the First Team of the Club, as well as to provide certified information about
the registration for the player for the club, ensuring the right to effective occupation in the time
limit of 15 days, otherwise the player shall be entitled to terminate the contract with just cause
with the right for compensation and to be imposed sportive sanctions to the club.”
4.
On 11 December 2023, the Club replied to the Player and stipulated the following:
“Please note that there is a foreign player quota for the clubs of the Liga 1 Indonesia. Since the
Player has been injured recently, Persib had to engage other players for his replacement.
However, we would like to emphasize that Persib regularly complies with all its financial duties
towards the Player, and the Player is entitled to regularly participate to the training with Persib’s
first team. Depending on the course of the current season of the Liga 1 Indonesia, it may very
well be that the Player will again have the opportunity to play in official matches with Persib’s
first team.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13358
Finally, please note that if the employment relationship between Persib and the Player should
be unilaterally terminated by the Player, Persib reserves its right to all claims against the Player.
Moreover, the Player would of course not be permitted to participate to the training with Persib’s
first team anymore, and Persib would obviously no longer feel obliged to regularly pay his
salary.
In view thereof, we consider that the status quo is serving the best interests of both the Player
and Persib, and we therefore advise the Player not to unilaterally terminate his employment
relationship with Persib.”
5.
On 18 December 2023, the player replied indicating that the allegation of the Club is false,
as per the records the Player was only injured in the matches of 21 and 28 October 2023
against Borneo FC and PSS Sleman respectively and 1 November 2023 against Madura
United.
6.
However, the Player alleged that as soon as he recovered, he was chosen to participate to
the matches of 8 and 26 November 2023 against Arema FC and Dewa United.
7.
Finally, in his reply of 18 December 2023, the Player claimed that “only after that, the Club
deregistered the Player from the squad without any valid reason” and provided the match
sheets from Transfermarkt in which he appears as not eligible for the matches of 4
December 2023 against PSM Makassar and 10 December 2024 against Persik.
8.
On 21 December 2023, the Club sent a second response to the Player alleging the following:
“We noted that in your afore-mentioned correspondence, you did not substantially respond to
our suggestion that the status quo is in the best interest of both the Player and Persib. However,
please note that Persib regularly complies with all its financial duties towards the Player, and
the Player is entitles to regularly participate to the training with Persib’s first team. Moreover,
depending on the course of the current season of the Liga 1 Indonesia, it may very well be that
the Player will again have the opportunity to play in official matched with Persib’s first team.”
9.
On 3 January 2024, the Player terminated the Contract with the Club.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 15 January 2024, the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent filed the claim at hand before FIFA.
A summary of the parties’ position is detailed below.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13358
a. Position of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent
11. The Player argues that the Club violated his fundamental rights, which gave him a just cause
to terminate the Contract.
12. The requests for relief of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent, were the following:
“The Claim shall be accepted.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall declare the Claimant have terminated the employment
contract with the Respondent, with just cause.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber shall condemn the Respondent Club to pay to the Claimant, as
compensation in the total amount of Rp. 3.150.000.000 net, plus interest at 5% rate since the
termination of the employment contract, until effective payment.”
b. Position of the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant
13. According to the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant, in October 2023 “the Player was first
suspended for one match due to yellow cards, then had an injury due to which he missed a few
more games. Therefore, the coach was forced to field another player instead. Such replacement
player convinced the coach with good performances. Therefore, when the Player was recovered
from his injury, the Coach choose to continue to play with the replacement player and did first
not field (“on the bench”) and then not call-up the Player (“not in squad”) for the matches
anymore.”
14. Furthermore, the Club argued that the “Player’s allegation that he was “not eligible”, i.e. not
registered with the Club, it appears that the Player was just not fielded, respectively not calledup to the matches anymore after his absence due to the yellow card suspension and the injury.
The Player did not submit any evidence for his allegation that he had been deregistered.”
15. In continuation, according to the Club “the Player was always permitted to the training with
the Club’s first team and regularly received his monthly salary payments. Moreover, the Club
informed the Player that depending on the course of the season, he may again have the
opportunity to play in official matches with the Club’s first team.”
16. In conclusion, the Club claimed that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the
Contract as he did not provide “sufficient evidence for his theory that he had been deregistered
and that he should therefore have been entitled to unilaterally terminate his employment
contract with just cause.”
17. Finally, the Club invoked art. 17 of the Regulations, and argued that the Player is liable to
compensate the Club.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13358
18. In view of the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“The Player’s claim be rejected;
“The Counterclaim of the Club be accepted and the Player be ordered to pay to the Club
compensation for breach of contract in an amount to be specified by the Club upon receipt of a
copy of the Player’s employment contract with Davao Aguilas and any other employment
contract the Player may enter into until 31 May 2025, plus 5% interest p.a. since 3 January 2024;
Davao Aguilas be declared to be jointly liable together with the Player to pay the compensation
for breach of contract to the Club;
A four month- restriction on playing in official matches be imposed on the Player for breach of
contract within the protected period;
In the alternative, the Claim of the Player be reduced in an amount to be specified by the Club
upon receipt of a copy of the Player’s employment contract with Davao Aguilas and any other
club the player may join until 31 May 2025;
The procedural costs and the legal costs of the Club be borne by the Player and Davao Aguilas.”
c. Reply to the counterclaim of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent
19. In reply to the counterclaim, the Player rejected and contested the documents of the
counterclaim as well as “its contents, information, declarations, amounts in everything that is
in opposition to the Respondent’s allegations.”
20. In conclusion, the Player requested the following:
“The counterclaim shall be rejected;
The Player shall not be ordered to pay to the Club compensation for breach of contract in an
amount to be specified by the Club;
Davao Aguilas shall not be declared to be jointly liable with the Player to pay the compensation
for breach of contract to the Club;
A four-month restriction on playing in official matched shall not be imposed on the Player;
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13358
The procedural costs and the legal costs of the Counter Respondent shall be borne by the
Counter Claimant.”
d. Reply to the counterclaim of the intervening party
21. The intervening party did not file a reply via the Legal Portal within the stipulated time limit.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
22. 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 15 January 2024 and submitted for decision
on 08 August 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.
23. 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 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 Filipino player and
an Indonesian club.
24. 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 January 2024, the May 2023 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Admissibility
25. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber reiterates that the intervening party did not
file a reply via the Legal Portal within the stipulated time limit; it only provided its response
via email.
26. According to art. 10 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, all communications shall be undertaken
via the Legal Portal. Therefore, the Chamber considered the above reply via email was
inadmissible and shall not be taken into account.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13358
c. Burden of proof
27. 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).
d. Merits of the dispute
28. 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
29. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the main point of contention relates to the circumstances surrounding the alleged
deregistration of the Player and whether he had just cause to terminate the contract.
30. The Chamber has noted that the Parties concluded the Contract valid from 1 June 2023
until 31 May 2025.
31. Moreover, the Chamber observed that on 3 January 2024, the Player terminated the
Contract, alleging his deregistration and exclusion from the team.
32. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the Club argued that the termination by the Player
was without just cause as he did not provide sufficient evidence of his deregistration.
33. However, in his response, the Player argued that he had been replaced by another player
and that the coach continued to field the replacement. After recovering from his injury, the
Player was initially placed on the bench and subsequently was no longer called up for
matches.
34. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Club further claimed that the Player was
permitted to train with the first team and, depending on the course of the season, would
have been permitted to play in official matches again.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13358
35. Nonetheless, the Chamber observed that the Club did not provide corroborating evidence
as to its plans for the Player or the timeline for when the Player would be permitted to play
in official matches again, hence the intended duration for the Player’s non-participation in
official matches cannot be clearly established. Indeed, the DRC recalled that the Club
limited its explanations to stating that “depending on the course of the season, he may again
have the opportunity to play in official matches with the Club’s first team”.
36. The Chamber recalled that based on the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, 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, as the career development of a player
may be prejudiced as a result of such inactivity. In this respect, and while the Club denied
that it had deregistered the Player, the Chamber noted that there was an absence of any
evidence from the Club that corroborated the Player’s status.
37. Therefore, the Chamber considered that by excluding the Player from official matches and
in the absence of a clear timeline as to when - or even if - the Player would return to play,
the Club was effectively preventing the Player from participating in official matches sine die.
The Chamber further determined that, on the basis of the specific circumstances of this
case and the evidence on file, and with due consideration for the Player’s correspondence
and the Club’s replies thereto, the Club’s behaviour amounted to a breach of the Contract.
38. Consequently, in view of the above, the Chamber decided that the Player had just cause to
terminate the Contract on 3 January 2024. As such, the Club’s argumentation could not be
upheld, and its counterclaim must therefore be rejected.
ii. Consequences
39. 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.
40. The Chamber observed that there was no outstanding remuneration at the time of
termination.
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, 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.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13358
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 members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
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 IDR 3,150,000,000 (i.e. IDR 180,000,000x 5 months plus IDR
187,500,000x 12 months) 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 the Filipino club, PPFACW. In accordance with
the pertinent employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately PHP 30,000
per month payable from 1 February 2024 until 1 August 2024. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of PHP 210,000
(approximately IDR 58,765,980).
47. 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 IDR 3,091,234,020 to the Player (i.e. 3,150,000,000 minus 580,765,980), which was to be
considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in
the present matter.
48. 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 January 2024 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13358
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent/ CounterClaimant must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant/
Counter- Respondent within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the
request of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent, 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/
Counter- Claimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
52. The Respondent/ Counter- Claimant 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.
53. 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.
e. Costs
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13358
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent, Daisuke Sato, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/ Counter- Claimant, Persib Bandung, must pay to the Claimant/ CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- IDR 3,091,234,020 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 3 January 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant is 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/ Counter- Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/ CounterRespondent 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-13358
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. 13