Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed on 20 May 2020,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Deputy Chairman
Jerom e Perlem uter (France), member
Angela Collins (Australia), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Play er A, Country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, Country D
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
Contractual basis
1.
The Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player) and the
Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 7 January 2019 until
30 December 2019.
2.
In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to the following
remuneration:
USD 60,000 as advance payment “upon signing the contract and applying
medical examination”;
USD 11,666 as monthly salary payable at the end of the month.
3.
In addition, the contract, inter alia, foresaw that the player “receives bonus
amounting USD 15,000 in case team is escalated to the major league.”
4.
Furthermore, the contract stipulates the following:
“1- It is possible to amend some provisions of the contract with consent of parties
together with signature on any addition or deletion.
2- Parties may mutually agree on terminating the contract before expiry of term
established herein.
[The Respondent] may terminate the contract against payment of 2 month salary to
the [Claimant].”
5.
Art. 11 of the contract foresaw that “1. The two parties shall endeavour to settle
their disputes relating to this contract amicably. 2. The Chamber for settlement of
Disputes of FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D is the competent jurisdiction for
settlement of the disputes relating to the interpretation and execution of this
contract.”
6.
According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter:
TMS), the 2018/2019 season in Country D finished on 31 May 2019 and the 2019/2020
season started on 24 August 2019.
7.
On 16 September 2019, the Claimant signed a new employment agreement with the
Club of Country F, Club G, valid from 6 September 2019 to 31 December 2019
according to which he earned a monthly salary of USD 5,250.
Requests of the parties
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 2 of 16
8.
On 3 January 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim of FIFA and requested the
following:
(i)
“determine that, on 17 August 2019, [the club] had overdue payables towards
[the player] for the purpose of article 14bis of the RSTP, at least in the
amount of the monthly remunerations of June and July 2019;
(ii)
Determine that [the player] had just case to terminate the employment
agreement on 17 August 2019;
(iii)
Order [the club] to immediately pay the total amount of USD 81,666.69;
(iv)
Order [the club] to pay interest for late payment over the amounts due, as
follows:
a. 5% p.a. over USD 11,666.67 as from 30 June 2019 and until effective payment;
b. 5% p.a. over USD 11,666.67 as from 31 July 2019 and until effective payment;
c. 5% p.a. over USD 6,397.85 as from 31 August 2019 and until effective
payment;
d. 5% p.a. over USD 51,935.50 as from 31 August 2019 and until effective
payment;
(v)
Order [the club] to pay USD 15,000 if and when their first senior team is
promoted to the major league upon the conclusion of the 2019/2020 season;
(vi)
Impose any sanction to the club as considered appropriate.”
9.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent requested primarily that the claim be
considered inadmissible. Alternatively, the Respondent requested that it shall be
deemed that the contract was mutually terminated by the parties on 19 May 2019
upon the player’s departure to Country B, and that therefore no compensation is
payable and the claim of the player for the salaries of June and July 2019 shall be
rejected.
10.
Should the DRC deem that any amounts are due to the player, the Respondent
argued that only the month of June 2019 may be awarded.
Competence of FIFA and admissibility of the claim
11.
The Respondent disputed FIFA’s competence to deal with the present dispute.
12.
Making reference to art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players, the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: NDRC)
regulations and FIFA Circular 1010, the Respondent sustained that the “Chamber for
settlement of Disputes of FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D” (hereinafter:
NDRC of Country D) meets all the relevant prerequisites and should therefore be
competent to hear the present matter.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 3 of 16
13.
In fact, the Respondent provided a copy of the Football Federation of Country D
statutes and the NDRC of Country D according to which said body is impartial,
guarantees fair hearing and the equal representation of players and clubs
representatives. In this respect, the Respondent declared that according to art.6-10
of the Country D NRDC regulations, the chamber is composed as follows:
- 1 Chairman and 1 Deputy Chairman, whom must have legal qualifications and
are appointed by the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D board. They shall
not be board members of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D nor of a
club.
- 6 members minimum, with at least:
(a) 3 clubs’ representatives. They shall not be board members of the FOOTBALL
FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D nor of a club;
(b) 3 players’ representatives appointed by the Country D players’ union. They
shall not be board members of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D
nor of a club.
14.
As to the competence, the Claimant referred to art. Article 15 of the contract,
according to which:
“1. The two parties declare that they have reviewed this contract and the
regulations and circulars of FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D and FIFA before
signing it and that they are bind [sic] to abide thereby.
2. Any provision herein that is contradictory to the laws, regulations and circular of
FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D, FIFA [...] shall be considered null and void.”
15.
The Claimant came to conclusion that it is “undisputable that the Parties expressly
provided for the application of the FIFA statutes and regulations to the execution of
the Employment Agreement and therefore to any dispute arising thereof.”
Overview of the case
16.
On 6 January 2019, the Claimant and the Respondent (hereinafter jointly referred to
as the parties) signed an employment contract, valid as of 7 January 2019 until 30
December 2019. The parties agreed on, inter alia, a monthly remuneration in the
amount of USD 11,666 (cf. I.1 and I.2 above).
17.
According to the Claimant, on 27 May 2019, he received a letter from the
Respondent, whereby the latter informed him of its intention terminate the contract
as established in the termination clause (cf. I.4 above). On 30 May 2019, the Claimant
informed the Respondent that “any agreement regarding the termination of the
Employment Agreement would be subject to the previous payment of the agreed
compensation”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 4 of 16
18.
Between 9 and 12 July 2019, the parties exchanged several What’s App messages
regarding the contract. The Claimant maintained that the Respondent omitted to
pay him the two monthly salaries due as per the termination clause in the contract
and therefore he refused to sign the termination agreement.
19.
On 26 July 2019 and 30 July 2019, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent,
notifying it about the allegedly outstanding salaries of June 2019 and July 2019.
Moreover, in the same correspondence, the Claimant rejected the termination and
insisted on the execution of the employment contract “until 31 December 2019”,
asking to be reinstated to the “Club’s senior side and be allowed to immediately
resume his playing and training activities.”
20.
On 31 July 2019, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent regarding the two
outstanding salaries of June and July 2019, setting a time limit of 15 days in order
for the club to remedy the default.
21.
In its reply on 31 July 2019, the Respondent requested the Claimant to provide his
“current residence so [it] can issue the travel tickets to join training of the first team
in the Country E urgently.”
22.
On 1 August 2019, the Claimant sent a notification to the Respondent, informing
that he will join the team upon several conditions: (1) outstanding salaries will be
paid, (2) appropriate immigration status, (3) valid registration, (4) reintegration with
the first team, however to no avail. In particular, the player stressed out that he was
subjected to “extreme pressure and duress” with regard to his employment with the
Respondent.
23.
Further exchange of correspondence took place between the parties on 7 August
2019, 9 August 2019, and 16 August 2019.
24.
On 17 August 2019, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the employment contract,
alleging that the Respondent “failed to complete payment of the two outstanding
remunerations (June and July 2019).” Moreover, the Claimant pointed out his
tentative dismissal by the Respondent and the order “to remain in his country”.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent clearly demonstrated “its absolute lack
of interest in the [Claimant’s] services.”
25.
The Claimant maintains that he terminated the contract with just cause based on art.
14 and 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, because “the
relationship has become untenable in view of the circumstances.”
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 5 of 16
26.
With regard to the calculation of the compensation, the Claimant disputes the
applicability of the termination clause, since it is “clearly disproportionate and
disregards the principle of equal treatment between the Parties.” For the purposes
of the calculation of the compensation, the Claimant requests the application of art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and asks for the
residual value of the contract.
27.
In its reply as to the substance of the dispute, the Respondent explained that the
Claimant had always received his dues up until his departure to Country B, on 19
May 2019, when the parties started to discuss a mutual termination which could not
be agreed. The Respondent stated that it acknowledged receipt of the Claimant’s
default notices and that requested his return to Country D. In particular, the
Respondent stressed that it is only as from 26 July 2019 that the player started to
express his desire to return to Country D under certain conditions, before finally
terminating the contract and signing with a new club.
28.
As such, the Respondent is of the opinion that the parties de facto terminated the
contract since the Claimant’s departure on 19 May 2019, and that as such no amount
is due to the Claimant.
29.
In case any amount is awarded, the Respondent emphasised that according to the
terms of the contract, the salaries are due on the 7th day of the following month.
Therefore, the Respondent was of the opinion that as the player terminated in
August 2019, only the June 2019 salary would actually be owed to the player.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred also as: DRC or
Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In
this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 3 January 2020. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2019; hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules
and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with
art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition March
2020) the Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a Player of Country B and a Club of Country D.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 6 of 16
3.
However, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of
FIFA’s deciding bodies stating that an independent arbitration tribunal in line with
art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in fine, exists
within the framework of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D. In addition,
the Respondent referred to art. 11 of the contract which stipulates that:” “1. The
two parties shall endeavour to settle their disputes relating to this contract amicably.
2. The Chamber for settlement of Disputes of FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY
D is the competent jurisdiction for settlement of the disputes relating to the
interpretation and execution of this contract.”
4.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant considered that FIFA has
jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.
5.
While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the DRC
deemed paramount to outline that one of the basic condition that needs to be met
in order to establish that another organ than the Dispute Resolution Chamber is
competence to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of
an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national
arbitration tribunal or national court derives from a clear reference in the
employment contract.
6.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that art. 11 of the contract contained a clear and
specific reference to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC of Country D (cf. I.5
above).
7.
In continuation, the DRC emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the
March 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the
Chamber is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an
independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the
principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at
national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining
agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent
arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA
Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the DRC made reference to the
principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC)
Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
8.
In this respect, the DRC turned its attention to the principle of equal representation
of players and clubs and underlined that this principle is one of the very
fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution
chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 7 of 16
well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned
principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who
shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman
chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three
and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of
the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on
the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten
club representatives (…).” In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the
following: “The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of
arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint
an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the
arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined
list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence
over the compilation of the arbitrator list”.
9.
On account of the above, the Chamber went on to examine the documentation
presented by the Respondent and noted that the Board of the FOOTBALL
FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D appoints both Chairman and deputy Chairman. As
such, the members of the DRC concluded that the Chairman and deputy Chairman
are not elected by consensus of player and club representatives. Therefore, the
Chamber was unanimous in its conclusion that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of
the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D does not respect the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs.
10.
As a consequence of the above-mentioned elements, the DRC was of the opinion
that it could not be concluded that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the
FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D is an independent arbitration tribunal
guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation
of players and clubs.
11.
On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s
objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be
rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge is competent, on the basis
of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider
the present matter as to the substance. The DRC wished to underline that such
conclusion was consistent with past decisions reached by the Dispute Resolution
Chamber as to the functioning of the NDRC of Country D.
12.
Having established the above, the DRC analysed which regulations should be
applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition March 2020), and considering that the present claim was
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 8 of 16
lodged on 3 January 2020, the January 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
13.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC
started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments
and the documentation on file. However, the Dispute Resolution 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in
accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within
the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any
documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.
14.
Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent
signed an employment contract valid as from 7 January 2019 until 30 December
2019. In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the
Respondent, inter alia, monthly salary of USD 11,666 payable at the end of the
month, as well an advance payment of USD 60,000 payable at the signature of the
contract.
15.
Then the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent
in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables toward him
corresponding to the salaries of June and July 2019 and further requested
compensation for breach of the contract in the amount of USD 81,666.69.
16.
In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 27 May 2019, the
club had sent a draft termination agreement to the player, and that on 30 May 2019
the player refused to agree to a termination.
17.
In addition, the DRC duly noted that the parties discussed during the month of July
2019 the possibility to terminate the contract, without success.
18.
Then, the Chamber observed that on 31 July 2019, the Claimant put the Respondent
in default of payment of the salaries of June and July 2019, setting a 15 days’ time
limit in order to remedy the default and in which he mentioned that in the absence
of payment of the aforementioned amounts, he would deemed the contract as
terminated by the club.
19.
The DRC observed that on 17 August 2019, the player subsequently terminated the
contract in view of the absence of compliance from the club.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 9 of 16
20.
The Chamber then observed that the Respondent was of the opinion that the
contract had de facto been terminated by the parties on 19 May 2019, upon the
player’s departure to Country B.
21.
In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the club argued that only the salary of
June 2019 should be awarded to the Claimant, if any, in view of the fact that the
contract was terminated in August 2019 prior to the salary of July 2019 having
become due.
22.
In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed that the main issue at stake
in this current matter was to determine whether the contract had been terminated
with just cause by the Claimant, and to determine the consequences of said
termination.
23.
In this respect, the Chamber remarked that the club had, since 27 May 2019, notified
to the player its will to terminate their contractual relationship, but that their
negotiations were not fruitful.
24.
In particular, the DRC remarked that the Respondent had expressed that the contract
had de facto been terminated on 19 May 2019, upon the player’s return to Country B
after the end of football season of Country D 2018/2019.
25.
The Chamber emphasized that the return of the Claimant to his home country after
the end of the season did not constitute a termination of the contract, as his return
occurred in or around a week prior to the Respondent notifying its intent to put an
end to the relationship. The DRC underlined that there was no evidence on file that
would suggest that the Claimant had indeed left Country D with the will to stop
honoring his contractual duties, but that the Claimant rather travelled back to his
home country as part of his so-called end of season break.
26.
Therefore, the DRC dismissed this particular argument of the Respondent, and
determined that the contract was still valid and binding after 19 May 2019.
27.
Then, the Chamber took note that it remained uncontested that the salary of June
had not been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant and remained overdue, and
that the Respondent had not provided any valid reason to the withholding of this
amount.
28.
In addition, the Chamber observed that the Claimant deemed that the salary of July
2019 had also fallen due, whilst the Respondent argued that said salary fell due on 7
August 2019, and was of the opinion that is fell due after the player’s unilateral
termination.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 10 of 16
29.
Having paid particular attention to the evidence of file, the Chamber recalled that
the player terminated the contract on 17 August 2019, and that the contract foresaw
that any salary would become due at the end of each respective month, and
therefore overdue on the first day of the following month.
30.
As such, the DRC dismissed the argumentation of the Respondent in this regard, and
determined that upon termination of the contract by the Claimant on 17 August
2019, the salaries of June 2019 and July 2019 were overdue.
31.
Recalling the contents of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations according to which “in
case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their
due dates, the player sill 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
obligations”, the Chamber duly noted that upon sending his default notice on 31
July 2019, the salary of June 2019 was overdue, but the salary of July 2019 was not
yet overdue.
32.
As such, the DRC acknowledged that the prerequisites of art. 14bis were not met.
However, the Chamber observed that in August 2019, the Claimant had showed a
willingness to return to the Respondent and resume his duties, but that the
Respondent had, despite several injunctions, to pay the salaries of June 2019 and
July 2019, the latter having become due in the meantime.
33.
Recalling its extensive jurisprudence on the matter, the Chamber emphasized that
the timely payment of the remuneration foreseen in an employment contract
constitutes one of the fundamental rights of an employee. In particular, the DRC
highlighted that in the present case, the Respondent had not provided any valid
reason as to the absence of payment of the salaries of June and July 2019, this
despite the numerous remainders of the player.
34.
Consequently, and in view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the player
had just cause to terminate the contract on 17 August 2019, and that the club has to
bear the consequences of the early termination of the employment relationship.
35.
Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination
of the employment contract, the DRC focused its attention on the consequence of
such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
DRC decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount
of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding
payments on the basis of the relevant contract.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 11 of 16
36.
First of all, the DRC judge reverted to the Claimant’s claim by which he requested the
award of a total amount of USD 81,666.69, which included the salaries of June and
July 2019 that were outstanding before the date of termination.
37.
Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 17 August
2019, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the amount of
USD 23,332, corresponding salaries of June and July 2019.
38.
In addition, taking into account the player’s request and its well-established
jurisprudence, the Chamber decided that the club must pay to the player interest of
5% p.a. on the amounts of USD 23,332 until the date of effective payment as
follows:
a. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,666 as from 1 July 2019 until the
date of effective payment; and
b. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,666 as from 1 August 2019 until the
date of effective payment
39.
In continuation, the DRC focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members
of the DRC judge 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.
40.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent 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 DRC
remarked that a termination clause was foreseen in the contract (cf. I.4 above), but
that the clause was only offering a possibility to terminate the contract to the club,
without providing reciprocity to the player.
41.
Consequently, and in line with its jurisprudence on unilateral and potestative
termination clauses, determined that this clause could not be applied to the matter
at hand.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 12 of 16
42.
As a consequence, the members of the DRC determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in
application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The
DRC recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of
criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
43.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the DRC proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the
contract until 30 December 2019. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the
amount of USD 58,330 shall serve as basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
44.
In continuation, the DRC 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 able to reduce his loss of income. In this
respect, the DRC deemed it necessary to refer to the first sentence of art. 17 par. 1
lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player signed a new
contract by the time of the decision, the value of the new contract for the period
corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated contract shall
be deducted from the residual value of the contract that was terminated early (the
”Mitigated Compensation”).
45.
In this regard, the DRC noted that on 16 September 2019, the Claimant signed a new
employment agreement with the Club of Country F, Club G, valid from 6 September
2019 to 31 December 2019 according to which he earned a monthly salary of USD
5,250.
46.
Therefore, the Chamber determined that the mitigated compensation corresponded
to USD 37,330.
47.
Moreover, taking into account art. 17 par.1 lit. ii), the DRC recalled that it in case of
a termination due to overdue remuneration where a player has been able to
mitigate his damages, an “additional compensation” corresponding to 3 monthly
salaries shall be awarded to said player, bearing in mind that the overall
compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated
contract.
48.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent must pay the
amount of USD 58,330 to the Claimant.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 13 of 16
49.
In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided to
award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of decision, as per the
Claimant’s request, i.e. 20 May 2020, until the date of effective payment.
50.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II.12 above, the
DRC referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
51.
In this regard, the DRC pointed out 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 and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
52.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from
the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present
decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the 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 effective
on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
53.
Finally, 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. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
54.
The DRC judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the
Claimant.
*****
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is admissible.
2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 45 day s as from the date
of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 23,332 plus interest as follows:
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 14 of 16
a. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,666 as from 1 July 2019 until the date
of effective payment; and
b. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,666 as from 1 August 2019 until the
date of effective payment.
4. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 45 day s as from the date of
notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of
USD 58,330 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 May 2020 until the date of effective
payment.
5. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly,
preferably to the email address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision,
of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts
mentioned under point 2. and 3. above.
7. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance
with point 2. and 3. above to FIFA to the e-mail address [email protected], duly
translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
8. In the event that the amounts due in accordance with point 2. and 3. above are not
paid by the Respondent w ithin 45 day s as from the notification by the Claimant of
the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due
amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players).
9. The ban mentioned in point 8. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.
10. In the event that the amounts due in accordance with point 2. and 3. above are still
not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods,
the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee
for consideration and a formal decision.
*****
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 15 of 16
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the
DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the appeal procedure:
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS
directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the
elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10
days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant
shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS
(cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne, Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected] / www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 16 of 16