DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15489
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 November 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Milan
Spremo
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), Member
CLAIMANT:
Milan Spremo, Serbia
Represented by Spf Nezavisnot
RESPONDENT:
ŁKS Łódź Spółka Akcyjna, Poland
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15489
I. Facts of the case
1. On 7 January 2023, the Serbian player Milan Spremo (hereinafter: the “Claimant” or “Player”)
and the Polish club ŁKS Łódź Spółka Akcyjna (hereinafter: the “Respondent” or “Club”)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the “Contract”) valid as from 7 January
2023 until 30 June 2023.
2. In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant, inter
alia, a gross monthly salary of EUR 4,066 per month, payable on the 10th of the following
month.
3. The Contract further provided that, in the event the Club “was promoted to Ekstraklasa during
2022/2023 season the Player shall receive individual prize in the amount of 3,071 EUR (three
thousand seventy one euro) gross, payable within 30 days of the last day of 2022/2023 season”
(hereinafter: the “Individual Promotion Bonus”.
4. On 11 January 2024, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent citing the
following overdue payables:
-
EUR 4,066 salary due 10 July 2023
EUR 3,071 Individual Promotion Bonus
PLN 20,730 “for matches [ . . . ] which was supposed to be paid after the 2022/23 season”
(hereinafter: the “Team Promotion Bonus”).
5. In the notice, the Claimant provided the Respondent 10 days to cure the default.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6. On 7 August 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
7. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay outstanding remuneration owed to
the Claimant.
8. In his claim, the Player alleged that the payments cited in the default notice remain
outstanding and requested the following relief:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15489
“To order football club L.K.S. Lodz Spolka Akcyjna to pay the football player, Mr. Milan Spremo,
the amount as follows:
a. EUR 4,066 as outstanding salary for June 2023, which was supposed to be paid until 10 July
2023, with 5% interest p.a. from 11 July 2023 until the date of effective payment;
b. EUR 3,071 as outstanding bonus for the promotion to Polish “Ekstraklasa” after the 2022 –
2023 season, which was supposed to be paid until 10 July 2023, with 5% interest p.a. from
11 July 2023 until the date of effective payment;
c. PLN 20,730 as outstanding additional bonus for matches, with 5% interest p.a. from 7 August
2024 until the date of effective payment”
b. Position of the Respondent
9. In its reply, the Respondent acknowledged the entire financial obligation cited by the
Claimant but argued it had fulfilled such debts to the Claimant.
10. The Respondent argued that it had paid EUR 3,310.06 net (i.e. EUR 4,066 gross on 25 July
2023 as well as the months for March, April, and May 2024.
11. With respect to the Individual Promotion Bonus, the Respondent claimed it had paid EUR
2,500 net (i.e. EUR 3,071 gross) on 29 March 2024. The payment receipt was only partially
translated and included the following in English: “contract art. 5.6 individual bonus NET”.
12. With regard to the Team Promotion Bonus, the Respondent states it paid PLN 11,541 of the
PLN 20,730, but that it had deducted PLN 8,555 as a reimbursement of rent fees paid by
the Club for the Player’s accommodation during the term of the Contract.
13. The Respondent argues that the parties had agreed during the Contract negotiations that
the Club shall cover up to EUR 500 per month for the Player’s accommodation. The Club
went on to explain that the amount of accommodation costs covered during the Player’s
time with the Club, 9 February 2023 until 4 June 2023, would total EUR 1,923.
14. The Respondent stated that at an exchange rate of PLN 4.60 to EUR 1.00 the EUR 1,923
would come to PLN 8,845.
15. Furthermore, the Respondent claimed that it covered a total of PLN 17,400 for the Player to
stay in a hotel during his time with the Club and therefore, after deducting its obligation of
PLN 8,845, the difference of PLN 8,555 should be borne by the Player, which it deducted
from the Team Promotion Bonus.
16. The Club requested that the Player’s claim be dismissed in full.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15489
c. Replica of the Claimant
17. The Claimant explained that the Contract spanned six months, from 7 January 2023 until 30
June 2023, i.e. 6 salary payments, but the Respondent had only paid 5 salaries and
submitted evidence for payment of only 4 salaries.
18. With respect to the Individual Promotion Bonus, the Claimant confirmed receipt of EUR
2,500 on 29 March 2024 but stated that the obligation was for EUR 3,071 and therefore,
the Respondent still owed a difference of EUR 571.
19. The Claimant argued that the parties agreed for the Club to cover the Claimant’s
accommodation due to the Claimant’s low income, but that there was no agreement for
the Claimant to cover partial hotel costs which the Claimant stated would have worked out
to half of his income.
20. The Claimant stated that the Respondent therefore still owes PLN 8,555 for the Team
Promotion Bonus.
21. The Claimant’s request for relief, as amended, was as follows
a. “EUR 4,066 as outstanding salary for June 2023, which was supposed to be paid until 10 July
2023, with 5% p.a. from 11 July 2023 until the date of effective payment;
b. EUR 571 as the remaining part of the individual bonus for the promotion to the Polish
“Ekstraklasa” after the 2022 – 2023 season, which was supposed to be paid until 10 July
2023, with 5% interest p.a. from 11 July 2023 until the date of effective payment;
c. PLN 8,555 as the remaining part of the team bonus for the Polish “Ekstraklasa”, with 5%
interest p.a. from 7 August 2024 until the date of effective payment;”
d. Duplica of the Respondent
22. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its request that the claim be dismissed in full.
23. The Respondent stated that it had paid a total of EUR 17,240.24, of which EUR 13,240.24
was transferred into the Player’s bank account and EUR 4,000 was paid out in cash.
24. The Respondent added that the January salary needed to be pro-rated because the Contract
term commenced only 7 January 2023, calculating such salary as EUR 2,582 net.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15489
25. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that it provided a net amount for the Individual
Promotion Bonus, i.e. after deducting PLN 295 for income tax and PLN 276.39 for public
health contribution, the amount netted out to EUR 2,500.
26. The Respondent confirmed that the agreement to only partially – as opposed to fully –
subsidizing the Player’s hotel fees was not documented in writing.
e. Additional Comments of the Claimant
27. The FIFA general secretariat invited the Claimant to provide, on or before 4 November 2024,
comments exclusively regarding the proof of payment of EUR 4,000 in cash filed by the
Respondent.
28. The Claimant stated that he did not receive the EUR 4,000 from the Club and alleged that
the cash payment was “fictitious” and created with the aim to circumvent the debt. The
Claimant argued that, had the payment been made, the Club would have included it in its
original reply, rather than only in the Replica.
29. The Claimant confirmed that he maintained his request of relief, as amended in his Replica
on 10 September 2024.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. 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 07 August 2024 and submitted for decision
on 27 November 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.
31. 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 (October 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 Serbian player
and a Polish club.
32. 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
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15489
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 August 2024, the June 2024 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
33. 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
34. 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
35. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute that the Respondent owes outstanding remuneration to the
Claimant.
36. The Chamber observed that the Claimant and the Respondent did not dispute that a valid
Contract existed between the parties, pursuant to which the Respondent agreed to pay
-
EUR 4,066 salary payment
EUR 3,071 as an Individual Promotion Bonus
PLN 20,730 as a Team Promotion Bonus
37. The Chamber recalled that the Respondent, however, claimed that it already fulfilled its debt
because:
-
with respect to the salary and Individual Promotion Bonus, the amounts were payable
in gross, and the individual payments made reflected the net payments;
further to the salary, it had made a cash payment of EUR 4,000; and
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15489
-
with respect to the Team Promotion Bonus, it deducted housing costs totalling PLN
8,555 per a private non-documented agreement for the Player to subsidize housing
above monthly EUR 500.
38. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to examine whether
remuneration indeed remained outstanding pursuant to the parties’ agreement.
Salary Payment
39. The Chamber first noted that, as the Claimant pointed out, the Respondent only submitted
proof of salary payments for 4 instalments, and the Claimant acknowledged receipt of five
salary payments, leaving one salary payment in dispute.
40. The Chamber further took note of the Respondent’s stance that the monthly payment of
EUR 3,310.06 would correspond to the net amount and fulfilment of the EUR 4,066 monthly
payments.
41. In this respect, the Chamber could find no contractual basis, nor did the Respondent provide
proof, of the EUR 3,310.06 payments representing net amounts and as such, as well as
considering the arguments of the parties, the Chamber was disinclined to apply the net
rate to any outstanding amount awarded.
42. The Chamber recalled that the Respondent further submitted what it claimed to be a cash
payment record of EUR 4,000 made to the Player. The Chamber also highlighted that the
Claimant denied that this payment was made as well as noted that this piece of evidence
was only introduced in the Respondent’s Duplica. The Chamber considered that, in any
event, the provided documentation would provide support for only one additional and
partial (EUR 4,000 of 4,066) salary payment showing it made four payments plus a partial
payment when in fact the contract provided for six salaries.
43. Therefore, and in light of the Claimant’s position that five salaries were fulfilled, The
Chamber decided to award the sixth salary in the amount of EUR 4,066.
Individual Promotion Bonus
44. With respect to Individual Promotion Bonus, the Chamber observed that the Respondent
indeed provided a payment record which stated, “contract art. 5.6 individual bonus NET”. The
foregoing notwithstanding, the Chamber recalled that the Contract did not specify that the
amounts were payable net, nor did it state what such amount would be.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15489
45. Moreover, the Chamber highlighted that the Respondent did not supply evidence of what
amounts were deducted from the gross amount to arrive at the net figure.
46. Therefore, the Chamber considered the amount of EUR 571 to remain outstanding.
Team Promotion Bonus
47. The Chamber recalled that the Respondent conceded having owed the PLN 20,730 to the
Claimant and that there existed no written agreement that the Player absorb a portion of
his housing cost, or deduct the amount from the Player’s wages. Equally, the Chamber
noted that no such an understanding was spelled out in the Contract.
48. The Chamber therefore awarded the remaining amount of PLN 8,555 as requested.
Interest
49. The Chamber recalled that the Claimant requested interest on the outstanding amounts.
50. With respect to the EUR 4,066 salary instalment and the residual EUR 571 of the Individual
Promotion Bonus, the Chamber determined that the 5% p.a. interest as from 11 July 2024
should be accepted as requested, as it represented the day following the last salary
payment due date under the Contract which was in line with the consistent practice of the
Football Tribunal.
51. With respect to the Team Promotion Bonus, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant
requested that such interest be awarded as from 7 August 2024, however the Chamber
could not find a contractual basis for such accrual date, but found that such date reflected
the date on which the claim was brought before the Football Tribunal, which was in line
with consistent practice of the DRC. Accordingly, the Chamber awarded the interest as
requested.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
52. Having established the above, the Chamber referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations,
which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days
without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the Regulations.
53. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due for more than 30 days, and granted the Club
with 10 days to cure such breach of contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15489
54. Accordingly, the Chamber also confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment without
a prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations were met in the case at hand.
55. The Chamber further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has
competence to impose sanctions on the club. On account of the above and bearing in mind
that the Club was not a repeat offender within the last two years, the Chamber decided to
impose a warning on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
56. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
60. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
61. 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. 10
REF. FPSD-15489
d. Costs
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15489
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Milan Spremo, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, ŁKS Łódź Spółka Akcyjna, must pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 4,637 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 July 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- PLN 8,555 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 August 2024
until the date of effective payment.
3.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
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. 12
REF. FPSD-15489
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