Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11993
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 December 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Natanael Siringo Ringo
BY:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), member
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), member
CLAIMANT:
Natanael Siringo Ringo, Indonesia
Represented by Mohd Zhafri Bin Aminurashid
RESPONDENT:
Kelantan FC, Malaysia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11993
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 January 2022, the Malaysian club Kelantan FC (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club)
sent a document denominated “Supplementary Letter of Offer” (hereinafter: the First
Proposal) to the Indonesian player Natanael Siringo Ringo (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
player), by means of which the Respondent offered an employment contract to the
Claimant to be finalized afterwards in case of formal acceptance by the latter.
2.
The player was born on born on 18 September 1999.
3.
According to the terms indicated in the First Proposal, the Respondent would undertake to
provide the Claimant, inter alia, with the following benefits:
-
a monthly salary of MYR 10,000.
Return flight tickets for the Claimant from Indonesia to Malaysia.
accommodation “at any place provided by the management (…)”.
4.
On 22 January 2022, the Claimant, and the Respondent (hereinafter jointly referred to as:
the parties) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the First Contract) valid as from 15
January 2022 until 30 November 2022.
5.
Pursuant to the First Contract, the Respondent confirmed undertaking to pay the Claimant
a net monthly salary of MYR 10,000 by the 7th day of each following month.
6.
Furthermore, under its Schedule B, the First Contract referred to the First Proposal to
determine the other benefits applicable to the Claimant.
7.
On 25 June 2023, the Respondent proposed the Claimant to sign a new employment
contract via means of another “Letter of Offer” (hereinafter: the Second Proposal).
8.
In accordance with the Second Proposal, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant
a monthly salary of MYR 15,000 by the 7th day of each following month.
9.
Furthermore, by means of the Second Proposal, the Respondent offered once again to
provide the Claimant, inter alia, with accommodation and a return flight ticket from
Indonesia to Malaysia, adopting the same wording utilized in the First Proposal.
10. On the very same date, the parties concluded a new employment agreement (hereinafter:
the Second Contract), valid as from the 25 June 2023 until 30 November 2024 and
incorporating the conditions and terms agreed by the parties under the Second Proposal.
11. By correspondence dated 11 September 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default
of payment of MYR 56,200 as outstanding remuneration under the First and the Second
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11993
Contract, contextually setting a time limit expiring on 26 September 2023 in order to
remedy the default.
12. On 26 September 2023, the Claimant notified the Respondent of the unilateral termination
of the Second Contract.
13. On 2 November 2023, the Claimant concluded a new employment contract with the
Indonesian club PS Barito Putera, valid as from the said date until 30 April 2025, for a global
remuneration of IDR 971,250,000, which corresponds approximately to MYR 290,986.50.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 29 September 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
15. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations
either under the First Contract and the Second Contract, in spite of the formal default
notice sent on 11 September 2023.
16. In particular, the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to pay one salary under the
First Contract and 3 additional salaries under the Second Contract.
17. Moreover, the Claimant stated that the Respondent failed to pay three monthly rates for
the Claimant’s accommodation during the Second Contract and the relevant flight
expenses.
18. Accordingly, the Claimant held having had just cause to terminate the Second Contract on
26 September 2023 due to the consistent amount of overdue payables by the Respondent
and claimed being entitled to the relevant compensation corresponding to the residual
value of the Second Contract.
19. The requests for relief of the Claimant, accordingly, were the following:
-
MYR 59,200 as outstanding amount;
MYR 225,000 as compensation amounting to the residual value of the contract;
MYR 45,000 as additional compensation (mitigation);
5% Interest per annum on the outstanding remuneration from the date of the claim;
5% Interest per annum on the outstanding remuneration from the date of the relevant
decision.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11993
b. Position of the Respondent
20. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
21. 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 29 September 2023 and
submitted for decision on 7 December 2023. 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.
22. 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 (May 2023 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 Indonesian
player and a Malaysian club.
23. 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 (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 September 2023, the aforementioned
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
24. 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. 5
REF. FPSD-11993
25. 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
26. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the on 22 January 2022, the Claimant and the
Respondent stipulated an employment agreement to be valid until 30 November 2022, i.e.,
the First Contract.
27. Equally, the Chamber noted that on 25 June 2023 the same parties stipulated a new labour
agreement, i.e., the Second Contract, valid from the said date until 30 November 2024.
28. In this context, the Chamber noted also that on 26 September 2023 the Claimant
unilaterally terminated the Second Contract, allegedly because of the Respondent’s failure
to comply with the financial obligations set under the Second Contract and the First
Contract.
29. In this respect, the DRC observed that the Respondent failed to present its response to the
claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not presenting its position
to the claim, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right of
defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
30. Accordingly, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the Claimant, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
31. In this context, the Chamber first wished to emphasize that although it remained
uncontested the Respondent’s failure to comply with part of its financial obligations under
the First Contract (i.e. the salary due for February 2022), the acknowledgement of any such
outstanding amount shall have no relevance within the scope of determining the Claimant’s
just cause to prematurely terminate the relevant labour agreement in force between the
parties, as at the time the First Contract had already naturally expired and the sole contract
governing the parties’ relationship was the Second Contract.
32. 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,
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11993
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).
33. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant claims having not received three
monthly salaries under the Second Contract, related respectively to June, July, and August
2023, in addition to the housing allowance due for the same months and a reimbursement
of the flight expenses incurred by the Claimant.
34. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of
having put the Respondent in default on 11 September 2023, whereas he terminated the
Second Contract on 26 September 2023.
35. In this respect, the Chamber wished to remark that art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations
requires players to grant a deadline of at least 15 days to debtor clubs in order to comply
with their financial obligations. In other words, and provided that all the other criteria set
under art. 14 bis par.1 were met, players will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate
their employment contract as from the 16th day following the relevant default notice,
36. Accordingly, considering the wording of art. 14bis par. 2 of the Regulations and the fact
that in the case at stake the Claimant terminated the employment contract within the 15th
day of the relevant notice period, the DRC established that the criteria set under art. 14bis
of the Regulations were not met.
37. Nevertheless, the DRC observed that the Respondent did not maintain its obligations in
accordance with the Second Contract and failed to pay at least 3 monthly salaries.
38. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the contract, based on art. 14 of the Regulations, in that the Respondent has persistently
failed to honour its contractual obligations towards the Claimant.
ii. Consequences
39. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
40. 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 3 salaries under
the Second Contract, amounting to MYR 45,000.
41. Furthermore, the DRC assessed that a further amount of MYR 10,000 remained
outstanding under the First Contract, namely in relation to the month of February 2022.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11993
42. Conversely, in regard to the flight expenses and accommodation allowances alleged by the
Claimant, the Chamber observed that the player failed to produce any evidence of the costs
effectively incurred nor the relevant employment contract(s) specified any specific amount
to be reimbursed or covered by the Respondent in this respect.
43. Accordingly, the members of the DRC established that the Claimant failed to sustain his
burden of proof and rejected this part of the claim.
44. With the foregoing in mind, 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., MYR 55,000.
45. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the date of the claim, i.e., 29 September
2023, until the date of effective payment, since the Claimant expressly requested so in his
claim. The DRC remarked that the Claimant could have requested interest as of the
respective due dates of each salary, however because he did not do so the Chamber could
not rule ultra petita.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11993
49. 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 MYR 225,000 (i.e., the residual value of the Second Contract)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
50. 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.
51. Indeed, the player found employment with the Indonesian club PS Barito Putera, valid as
from 2 November 2023 until 30 April 2025. In accordance with the pertinent employment
contract, the player was entitled to approximately IDR 55,250,000 per month until 30 April
2024 and IDR 63,750,000 until 30 April 2025. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
player mitigated his damages in the total amount of IDR 971,250,000, which corresponds
approximately to MYR 290,986.50. The Chamber thus concluded that the player mitigated
his damages entirely.
52. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e., overdue payables by the club, and therefore
decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
53. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of MYR
45,000, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
54. 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 MYR 45,000 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
55. 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 7 December 2023 until the date of effective
payment, since the Claimant expressly requested so in his claim. The DRC remarked that
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-11993
the Claimant could have requested interest as of the date of termination, however because
he did not do so the Chamber could not rule ultra petita.
iii. Sporting sanctions
56. Finally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had also on several occasions in the recent
past been held liable by the Football Tribunal for the early termination of the employment
contracts without just cause, namely in the following cases:
-
FPSD-6457 / DRC decision of 8 March 2022
FPSD-10936 / DRC decision of 17 August 2023
FPSD-11134 / Single Judge DRC decision of 11 October 2023
57. Moreover, the DRC observed that in concurrence with the abovementioned decisions,
including the present one, the Respondent has equally been found held liable for the early
termination of the employment contracts without just cause in the cases FPSD-11345 and
FPSD-12125, respectively on 11 October 2023 and 7 December 2023.
58. In this context, the Chamber wished to remark that although the last two mentioned cases
were not computed by the DRC for the purposes of determining the realization of repeated
offenses by the Respondent, these constitute nonetheless further evidence of how such
misbehaviour by the latter appears to be a recurring issue.
59. Under article 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, in addition to the obligation to pay
compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of
contract or found to be inducing a breach of contract during the protected period.
60. 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.
61. As to the protected period, this is defined in the Regulations as “a period of three entire
seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where
such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such
contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”.
62. In the present case, the player was born on 18 September 1999 and signed the Second
Contract with the Respondent club on 25 June 2023, the protected period would last 3
entire seasons or 3 years (whichever came first), considering that the contract was signed
prior to the 28th birthday of the player.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-11993
63. Accordingly, considering that the breach in the case at hand occurred on 26 September
2023 and that - at that moment in time - neither 3 entire seasons nor 3 years had elapsed
since the date on which the contractual relationship started, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of
the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall be banned from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and
consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision.
64. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with article 24 par.
3 lit. a) of the Regulations, the consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in due
time may be excluded where the Football Tribunal has imposed a sporting sanction on the
basis of article 17 in the same case. Consequently, the Chamber confirmed that the
consequences for failure to pay relevant amounts in due time envisaged by art. 24 of the
Regulations were excluded in the present matter, and that should the Respondent fail to
timely comply with this decision, it would be for the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to adopt
the necessary measures in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
d. Costs
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-11993
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Natanael Siringo Ringo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kelantan FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
MYR 55,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 September
2023 until the date of effective payment;
MYR 45,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 7 December 2023 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.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
6.
If full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 30 days of notification
of this decision, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request of the Claimant, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-11993
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 INFOMYRATION
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