Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5761
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 23 June 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Martin
Markus Steuble
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), member
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), member
CLAIMANT:
Martin Markus Steuble, Philippines
Represented by Santiago San Torcuato
RESPONDENT:
Muangkan United, Thailand
Page 2
REF FPSD-5761
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 June 2021, the Filipino player, Martin Markus Steuble (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) and the Thai club, Muangkan United (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent)
concluded an employment contract valid as from the same date until 30 June 2023
(hereinafter: the contract).
2.
The player was 33 years old when he signed the contract as he was born on 9 June 1988.
3.
Clauses 2.6 et seq of the contract read as follows:
2.6 Unless stated otherwise in the agreement, Player shall be responsible for all taxes, duties
and other similar charges including if applicable VAT stamp duty and personal income tax
arising under this agreement or applicable to performance of obligations of obligations under
this agreement.
2.7 The Player himself shall be responsible for tax filing tax payments and other related
compliance with the taxing authorities or any other relevant person unless otherwise specified
in this agreement. 2. 8 In the event that the payment under this agreement is subjected to any
deduction or withholding äs required by law, the Club shall make a deduction or withholding
form payment and pay such deduction or withholding to the taxing authorities or other
relevant authorities. When the Club has made such deduction or withholding. The club shall
deliver to the Player the withholding tax certificate or the payment evidence (hat the deduction
or withholding has been paid to relevant authority äs required by the law. The Parties
acknowledge and understand that the Player is a Thai tax resident (stating in Thailand at least
180 days in each calendar year) and according to the Club has an obligation to deduct 5
percent withholding tax under clause 9 (2) (b) of Department Regulation Re : Reordering payer
of assessable income under section 40 of Revenue Code to deduct withholding tax. However, if
this withholding obligation is amended or altered either due to the amendment of the law or
the interpretation by the taxing authority or any other reason, both parties agree to comply
with the obligation under the amended laws or interpretation.
2.8 In the event that the payment under this agreement is subjected to any deduction or
withholding as required by law, the Club shall make a deduction or withholding form payment
and pay such deduction or withholding to the taxing authorities or other relevant authorities.
When the Club has made such deduction or withholding. The club shall deliver to the Player
the withholding tax certificate or the payment evidence (hat the deduction or withholding has
been paid to relevant authority as required by the law. (…)”
4.
Per Schedule 1 of the contract, the player was entitled to the following remuneration and
benefits:
“Schedule 1. Remuneration and Benefits
Page 3
REF FPSD-5761
The Club agrees to provide the remuneration and benefits to the Player as follows;
1. The club will be offering two football seasons contract which will be the season of 20212022 & 2022-2023 and will be starting form 1 June 2021 onwards.
2. The Club will be offering the Player as follows;
2.1)
The salary will be offering monthly at the rate of 250,000 – bath per month (Two
hundred and fifty thousand Baht),
2.2)
In case the club only achieve to Thai league 1. The salary will be raising up for
player at rate 350,000 Bath (Three hundred and fifty thousand Bath) and this will be only
effective on 1st June 2022 onwards along with the conditions.
2.3)
The club will be offering special bonus to the player at rate 350,000 Bath (Three
hundred and fifty thousand Bath) if the club only achieve to Thai League 1 with the 1st title of
the league.
2.4)
The contract signing fee at the rate 250,000 Bath (Two hundred and fifty
thousand Bath) our club will pay on the day signing the employment contract with the
player.
2.5)
ended.
The club will be offering the team bonus to the player after the football season is
2.6)
The club will be providing and renting a condominium for the player.
2.7)
The club will be providing and renting a car for player.
2.8)
The club will be arranging visa and work permit for the player.
2.9)
The club will be offering the economy roundtrip air ticket Bangkok-Zurich for
one time only.
2.10)
Other benefits will be based upon the regulations of the Club or the resolutions
passed by the football board’s meeting or other regulations made in the future.”
5.
On 6 November 2021, the player put the club in default of payment of THB 830,000,
broken down as follows, and granted the latter 15 days to cure its breach, to no avail:
a. Full salary of June 2021;
b. Half of the salaries of August and September 2021;
Page 4
REF FPSD-5761
c. Full salary of October 2021;
d. Housing allowances between July and October 2021.
6.
On 23 November 2021, the player terminated the contract in writing.
7.
On 20 December 2021, the player and the Thai club, Karntharue FC signed an
employment contract, valid as of the same date until 31 May 2023, for a monthly salary
of THB 200,000
8.
On 13 April 2022, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA.
9.
The player argued that on the basis of art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (RSTP), he had just cause to terminate the contract, and therefore that
he is entitled to compensation.
10. He sought payment of the following concepts:
a. Outstanding remuneration under the contract: THB 981,666.66 net, as follows:
“On 23 November 2021, when the player terminated his employment relationship
with the club, the full salaries for two (2) months (June 2021 and October 2021)
would be outstanding according to the signed employment contract. In addition,
half of the months of August 2021 and September 2021 were also pending
payment, as well as the twenty-three (23) proportional days of November 2021,
therefore totalling 981,666.66 Bath (nine hundred eighty-one thousand six
hundred sixty-six hundred sixty-six and sixty-six) i.e., June 2021 (250,000 Bath),
August 2021 (145,000 Bath) September 2021 (145,000 Bath) October 2021 (250,000
Bath) and the days elapsed during November 2021 (191,666.66)”.
b. Sign-on fee and other benefits, as follows:
“neither the renting condominium expenses nor the renting car, nor the signing fee
stipulated, i.e., 250,000 Bath (two hundred and fifty thousand) were ever paid”.
c. Compensation for breach of contract: unspecified amount.
d. Applicable interest rate, as follows:
“According to Swiss law, a legal interests rate of five (5) per cent (%) annum shall
be applied to the values due by the Club to the Player, starting to count on the date
when each value became due until effective payment is made.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5761
(…) If this rule did not apply, it would encourage parties in a dispute not to pay the
amounts they owe and instead would require that they merely pay the amounts
previously due at a later date and without consequence. In other words, but for the
threat of accrued interest, the money finally received by a Claimant would suffer a
depreciation because of inflation. This principle is well established in the
jurisprudence of CAS.
(…) Therefore, the interest shall start to count on the date in which the debt arose
and not on the date of issue of the decision“.
e. Legal expenses and procedures cost: unspecified amount, as follows:
“The Player is aware that the FIFA bodies sometimes follow the practice of imposing
each of the parties to bear its legal expenses, irrespective of the merits of the
judgment.
(…) Nevertheless, we would like to point out that, in connection with the present
case, which is a clear case in which the Club simply breached all its obligations,
doing so would mean harm to the Player, the Party acting in good faith, whom has
complied with all of its obligations and which would bear an unnecessary and
unforeseen cost.
(…) Therefore, in light of the foregoing and the Club´s unjustified breach of the
employment contract, we respectfully request that this Honourable Court order
that the Club shall bear all legal fees incurred by the Player, in addition to the
totality of the FIFA administrative and procedural costs. Moreover, because it is not
reasonably possible to foresee the final legal costs that will be incurred as a result
of these proceedings, we also request that this Honourable Court award these costs
ex aequo et bono.
(…) In this respect, it is important to highlight that the Player had to pay out of his
own pocket the return air ticket to the Player´s country of origin (Philippines).”
11. Upon request of the FIFA general secretariat for the player to provide “a detailed
breakdown of the amount in dispute, indicating individually: (i) each of its components, (ii)
their currency, (iii) their contractual basis and (iv) which period of time (day/month/year) they
correspond to”, the player amended his claim to seek THB 7,578,082.16, with the remarks
detailed below:
a.
Net amounts: the player clarified that he seeks net amounts and in THB.
b.
Outstanding remuneration:
Page 6
REF FPSD-5761
“Under the terms of the Employment Contract, the Player is entitled to receive a
monthly salary of two hundred and fifty thousand Bath net (250.000). On 23
November 2021, when the Player terminated his employment relationship with the
Club, the Player had only received the monthly salary for July 2021 and a half salary
for August and September 2021. In other words, salaries for the entire June 2021,
half salary for August 2021, half salary for September 2021, the entire salary for
October 2021 and 23 (twenty-three) days corresponding to November 2021 would
be outstanding according to the signed employment contract.
As a consequence, the Player is owed in salaries a total amount of Bath nine
hundred and forty-one thousand six hundred and sixty-six thousand sixty-six and
sixty-six net (Bath 941,666.66) i.e.:
a) June 2021 (entire salary) Bath 250,000.00
b) August 2021 (half salary) Bath 125,000.00
c) September 2021 (half salary) Bath 125,000.00
d) October 2021 (entire salary) Bath 250,000.00
e) November 2021 (twenty-three days) Bath 191,666.66
We must take into consideration the fact that the contract establishes two seasons,
i.e., 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.
In addition to the salaries, the player never received the following items:
a) Signing fee Bath 250,000.00 (2.4 Schedule 1. Remuneration and benefits)
b) Housing allowance (2.6 Schedule 1. Remuneration and benefits) for the months
June 2021, July 2021, August 2021, September 2021, October 2021 and November
2021 proportional.
c) Renting car (2.7 Schedule 1. Remuneration and benefits) for the months June
2021, July 2021, August 2021, September 2021, October 2021 and November 2021
proportional.
d) Economy roundtrip air ticket Bangkok-Zurich (2.9 Schedule 1. Remuneration and
benefits)
c.
Compensation for breach of contract:
“the player shall be entitled to be compensated with the amount of remuneration
he would have received until the natural expiry of such a contract i.e., 30th June
2023. In accordance with this calculation criterion, corresponding to nineteen (19)
monthly salaries and 7 (seven) days –the number of remaining days until the end
of November 2021, making a total of Bath four million eight hundred and eight
thousand and three hundred thirty-three-point thirty-three (4,808,333.33) net.”
d.
Interest rate:
Page 7
REF FPSD-5761
“According to Swiss Law, a legal interest rate of five percent (5%) per annum shall
be applied to the values due by the Club to the Player, starting to count on the date
when each value became due until effective payment is made.
If this rule did not apply, it would encourage parties in a dispute not to pay the
amounts they owe and instead would require that they merely pay the amounts
previously due at a later date and without consequence. Therefore, the interests
shall start to count on the date in which the debt arose and not on the date of issue
of the decision. This principle is well established in the jurisprudence of CAS.
a) June 2021: Bath 250,000.00 – interest calculation Bath 10,273.97
b) August 2021: Bath 125,000.00 - interest calculation Bath 4,109,58
c) September 2021: Bath 125,000.00 – interest calculation Bath 3,595.89
d) October 2021: Bath 250,000.00 – interest calculation Bath 6,164.38
e) November 2021: Bath 191,666.66 – interest calculation Bath 3,938.35
Total interest calculation until the event of termination for the Club´s contractual
breach: Bath twenty-eight thousand eighty-two thousand eighty-two seventeen
(28,082.17). It should be noted that the interest should also be applied to the
different items due, i.e., signing fee, renting car, housing allowance and round-trip
air tickets.”
e.
Legal expenses and procedural costs: THB 50,000
f.
Compensation for “sport damage”:
“In application of the specificity of sport on breach of contract, CAS Jurisprudence
states that compensation for the breach should be calculated PLUS six months
average salaries.
In cases such as this one, the party in breach is the Club and not the Player,
therefore in this case the compensation for the specificity in sport jurisprudence
cannot be calculated with criteria such as the substitution of the Player in breach,
the salary that shall be paid to the new Player, the revenues affected, sponsors lost,
etc.
In order to calculate the specificity of sport in this situation, we shall consider that
the Player is 33 years old. Considering said damage caused by the Club and the
criterion applicable in cases such as these, the Claimant adds to the compensation
the sum of at least six (6) months of salary under the contract between the Player
and the Club, what is equal to Bath one million five hundred thousand
(1,500,000.00) net.”
12. No evidence that any expenses were incurred was filed by the player. Equally, no interest
was seemingly requested on the compensation.
Page 8
REF FPSD-5761
13. The club, for its part, failed to reply to the claim.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
14. 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 13 April 2022 and submitted
for decision on 23 June 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 2022
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.
15. 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 par.
1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2022 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 a Thai club.
16. 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 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 13 April 2022, the March 2022 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
17. 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
18. 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
Page 9
REF FPSD-5761
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
19. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the player claimed he had just cause to terminate
the contract based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the
Respondent as per the contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.
20. With the above in mind, the Single Judge highlighted that the Respondent, for its part,
failed to present its response, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the
Single Judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus
accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
21. In this context, 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.
22. 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, 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).
23. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
corresponding to June, July, August, September, and October 2021. Furthermore, the
Chamber noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the
Respondent in default on 6 November 2021, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally
terminating the contract on 23 November 2021.
24. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded
between the parties. Nonetheless, no evidence to this end is available.
25. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate
the contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
Page 10
REF FPSD-5761
26. 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.
27. The Chamber observed the player seeks payment of a number of concepts, and examined
each of them in turn.
28. First of all, as to the net amounts requested by the player, the DRC noted that art. 2.6 of
the contract clearly states that the amounts are not net of taxes – entailing that they
should be paid as contractually agreed to the player and that he has to settle any tax
obligations arising thereto.
29. Secondly, the Chamber referred to the salaries and sign-on fee requested, and since they
are contractually based that they should be awarded as follows:
Salaries:
Full salary of June 2021: THB 250,000
Half the salary of August 2021: THB 125,000
Half the salary of September 2021: THB 125,000
Full salary of October 2021: THB 250,000
Full Salary of November 2021: THB 250,000
Sign on fee
THB 250,000
30. Thirdly, the Chamber turned to the housing allowances, car rental, and flight tickets
requested by the player, and decided that this part of the player’s claim was to be rejected
since the player failed to meet his burden of proof, on the basis of the foregoing:
Housing allowances
The player provides no figure in this respect, nor any proof of expenses incurred. The
contract has also no indication of amounts.
Car rental
The likewise player provides no figure in this respect, nor any proof of expenses incurred.
The contract has also no indication of amounts.
Flight ticket
The player argued in his claim that he had to paid for the air fares out of pocket, but failed
to present any evidence of this.
Page 11
REF FPSD-5761
31. As a consequence, 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. THB 1,000,000.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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 THB 4,750,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract
calculated between December 2021 and June 2023, totalling 19 months) serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
36. 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.
Page 12
REF FPSD-5761
37. Indeed, the player found employment with Karntharue FC. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately THB 200,000
per month until May 2023. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated
his damages in the total amount of THB 3,600,000, that is, 18 times THB 200,000.
38. 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.
39. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of THB
750,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
40. 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 THB 1,900,000 to the player (i.e. THB 4,750,000 minus THB 1,600,000 plus THB 750,000),
which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present matter.
41. As to the player’s request for compensation for “sport damage”, the DRC was of the firm
position that this amount is entirely speculative and not backed up by any evidence. Quite
the contrary, the DRC wished to remark that the player was employed shortly after the
termination of the contract. As such, this petition of the Claimant was rejected.
42. Lastly, the DRC addressed the request for interest made by the Claimant. In this respect,
the Chamber concluded that the request for relief of the player is poorly worded, and that
he is claiming fixed amounts – the preoccupation of the player seemed, in the DRC’s view,
rather the starting date of the calculation of the interest, and not the payment date.
43. On this account and in due observance of the principle ne ultra petita, according to which
the DRC is bound by the limits set forth by the Claimant in his statement of claim, the DRC
decided to award the interest as claimed by the player, i.e. in fixed amounts: THB
10,273.97 plus THB 4,109.58 plus THB 3,595.89 plus THB 6,164.38 plus THB 3,938.35,
amounting to a grand total of THB 28,082.17 as interest.
iii. Sporting sanctions
Page 13
REF FPSD-5761
44. 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:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Case ref. FPSD-3366, DRC Decision of 27 October 2021;
Case ref. FPSD-3254, DRC Decision of 9 November 2021;
Case ref. FPSD-4447, DRC Decision of 23 February 2022;
Case ref. FPSD-4575, DRC Decision of 24 February 2022.
45. 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.
46. 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”.
47. In the present case, the player was 33 years old when he signed the contract, which took
place on 1 June 2021. Since neither two years or two entire seasons had not elapsed by
the time the contract was terminated, the Chamber confirmed that said termination took
place within the protected period.
48. At the same time, the DRC recalled that both (a) the player terminated the contract with
just cause, as the club had was found to have breached of the employment contract, and
(b) the club was a repeat offender in this respect. As such, and 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.
49. 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.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5761
d. Costs
50. 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.
51. 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. The requests of the Claimant to this end were thus
rejected.
52. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5761
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Martin Markus Steuble, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Muangkan United, has to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- THB 1,000,000 as outstanding remuneration;
- THB 28,082.17 as interest on late payment;
- THB 1,900,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment 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 is not made within 45 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
Page 16
REF FPSD-5761
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).
CONTACT INFORMATION
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
Page 17