Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14665
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 29 August 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Dušan Stoiljković
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil / Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
Radnički 1923, Serbia
Represented by Nenad Curkovic
FIRST RESPONDENT:
Dušan Stoiljković, Serbia
Represented by Mirko Poledica
SECOND RESPONDENT:
Turon, Uzbekistan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14665
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 June 2022, the Serbian club Radnički 1923 (hereinafter, Radnički) and the Serbian
player Dušan Stoiljković (hereinafter, the Player) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2023.
2.
In accordance with Clause 3.1 of the Contract, Radnički undertook to pay to the Player a
monthly salary of RSD 38,000 net on the 15th day of the following month.
3.
Pursuant to Clauses 3.2 and 3.3 of the Contract, Radnički also undertook to pay to the
Player the following amounts:
“3.2. The club undertakes to pay the Player for signing this contract a total amount of 34,516.00
euros in dinar equivalent at the middle exchange rate of the NBS on the day of payment, of
which the amount of 1,516.00 euros in dinar equivalent at the middle exchange rate of the NBS
on the day of payment, will be paid by 01/07/2022, and the rest of 33,000.00 euros euro in dinar
equivalent at the middle exchange rate of the NBS on the payment date, will be paid in eleven
(11) equal monthly instalments of 3,000.00 euro in dinar equivalent at the middle exchange rate
of the NBS on the day of payment, by no later than the 15th day of the month for the previous
month, and the first instalment is due on 15/08/2022. The amounts mentioned above are
guaranteed to the player and cannot be changed by any decision of the club. The
aforementioned deadlines are a mandatory element in this Contract (fixed contract in the sense
of Article 125 of the Law on Obligation Relations). These incomes do not have the character of
earnings (Article 13, paragraph 5 and 31, paragraph 11 of the Law on Sports) in the sense of the
regulations governing sports, but are taxes as other incomes.
3.3. The Contracting parties also determine special premiums as follows: for every point won in
an official competition match that the club achieves, the Club undertakes to pay the player
special premium of 150 euro in dinar equivalent at the middle exchange rate of the NBS on the
day of payment, up to 16 points achieved in the competition season 2022/2023, and afterwards
the premiums shall be paid according to the Club Regulation on Awarding for the season
2022/2023. The calculation of points premiums earned shall be done once a month and the
payment of these premiums shall be performed by the 15th day of the month for the previous
month. This premium is guaranteed to the player and cannot be changed by any decision of the
club. The aforementioned deadlines are a mandatory element of this Contract (fixed contract in
the sense of Article 125 of the Law and Obligation Relations)”.
4.
As per Clause 13.5 of the Contract:
“The parties hereto agree that the Dispute resolution Council of the FA of Serbia shall have
jurisdiction in case of dispute. Both the Club and Player agree not to bring any dispute arising
out of this Contract before ordinary courts”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14665
5.
On 6 January 2023, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract based on the Club’s
alleged non-payment of EUR 2,400, corresponding to 16 points won in official competitions
as per Clause 3.3 of the Contract (i.e., EUR 150 per point).
6.
On 10 January 2024, the Player and the Uzbek club Turon concluded an employment
contract valid as from 10 January 2023 until 10 December 2023.
7.
According to Clause 9 of this new contract, Turon undertook to pay to the Player a monthly
remuneration of USD 5,000 net and a sign-on fee of USD 10,000.
8.
On 25 January 2023, the Uzbek club Turon sent a letter to Radnički informing that they had
reached an agreement with the Player, and requested the issuance of the International
Transfer Certificate (ITC).
9.
In reply to the aforementioned letter, Radnički rejected the issuance of the ITC, and
informed that the Player terminated the Contract without granting it a deadline of fifteen
days nor having filed a complaint before the Commission for Registration of Players, which
is required by the regulations of the Football Association of Serbia (FSS).
10. On 23 February 2023, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber passed a decision by
way of which it granted the Player’s registration with Turon.
11. On 28 March 2024, Radnički paid RSD 668,441.70, corresponding to the bonus as per
Clause 3.3 of the Contract and the December 2022 salary.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 18 May 2024, Radnički filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of Radnički
13. According to Radnički, the Player terminated the Contract referring to Serbian national law
rather than to the FIFA regulations or the regulations of the FSS, in accordance with which
the unilateral termination is only possible if three monthly salaries are due and provided
that the player grants a deadline of 30 days to the club. Radnički argued that “the Player did
not provide any notice to the Club concerning the unpaid salaries”.
14. Radnički sustained that it had no debts towards the Player. Also, that even if any debts
existed, the Player was obliged to put it in default and grant 30 days to comply with its
financial obligations.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14665
15. According to Radnički, the Player acted in bath faith, “engineering a “breach on the Club’s side
in order to leave without transfer payment”.
16. Radnički claimed being entitled to EUR 400,000 net as compensation for breach of contract,
considering the “loss of transfer value plus unamortized expenses to acquire the Player plus
additional compensation due to specificity of sport minus residual value of the Contract”.
17. Radnički requested the following relief:
1. The claim of the Claimant, Football Club Radnički 1923 Ltd Kragujevac, is accepted.
2. The Respondent I, Mr. Stoiljković Dušan is ordered to pay Football Club Radnički 1923 Ltd
Kragujevac compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 400,000 (four hundred
thousand net) net plus 5% p.a. as from 7 January 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3. The Respondent I, Mr. Stoiljković Dušan is restricted on playing in official matches for 6 (six)
months in accordance with Article 17 para. 3 FIFA RSTP.
4. The Respondent II, Football Club Turon, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of
compensation in accordance with Article 17 para. 2 FIFA RSTP.
5. The Respondent II, Football Club Turon, is banned from registering any new players either
nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods in
accordance with Article 17 para. 4 FIFA RSTP.
b. Position of the Player
18. In his reply, the Player argued that the Contract was governed by Serbian law, in
accordance with which if the Club did not pay the agreed salary, the Contract would be
terminated by operation of the law. In this respect, “when a fixed deadline is agreed upon by
the parties in the agreement, timely fulfilment of the contract is considered a significant
component of the contract. hence, failure to fulfil contractual obligations within the deadline
shall be deemed as termination of the contract by operation of law, and it is not obligatory to
place the club in default”. In this respect, the Player sustained that the decision must be
based on the application of the laws of the Republic of Serbia, as defined in the Contract.
19. The Player argued that he could not seek protection of the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber (NDRC) of Serbia, as it has been blocked on several occasions, and it is under the
control of the FSS. The Player sustained that FIFPro has warned the players in this regard.
20. According to the Player, the lack of notice cannot affect the justification of the termination,
as it is not stipulated as a mandatory obligation that must be followed. In this respect, if a
club fails to pay bonuses for a period of five months, this must be considered as a serious
breach of contract by Radnički.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14665
21. The Player also argued that when it sent the termination notice, the Club was in default for
EUR 2,400 for the 16 points won during the 2022/2023 season. Additionally, the Player
sustained that the Club had not paid the December 2022 salary either. According to the
Player, the payments made by Radnički on 28 March 2024 proved that it owed such
amounts to him.
22. The Player alleged that the offer of Čukarički was fabricated, as anyone from such club has
ever contacted him to discuss a potential transfer. The Player argued that Čukarički’s
Director has a closed relationship with the managers of Radnički. According to the Player,
no club has ever paid a transfer fee in his career, and Radnički have not proved any
damages.
23. According to the Player, Turon is no longer competing in any league as an affiliated member
to the Football Association of Uzbekistan.
24. The Player requested the following relief:
1. The request of FC Radnički 1923 is fully rejected as unfounded.
2. It is confirmed that the contract between the club and the player was terminated by
operation of law, in accordance with the Law on Obligations, Article 125 of the Republic of
Serbia.
c. Replica of Radnički
25. According to Radnički, it is not true that the Player could terminate the Contract without
putting it in default. Radnički sustained that in the present case it cannot be considered
that there has been a significant breach of trust between the Player and Radnički.
26. Radnički insisted that it fulfilled his contractual obligations and, even if it did not, a debt of
EUR 2,400 as bonuses cannot be justification for termination when at that time Radnički
had paid all the Player’s salaries.
27. According to Radnički, “in order for a party to be allowed to legally cancel the employment
contract, it must warn the other party, so that it has the opportunity, if it considers that the
objection is justified, to comply with its obligations”.
28. Radnički lastly insisted in the validity of the offer of Čukarički to transfer the Player.
29. Radnički reiterated its request for relief.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14665
d. Duplica of the Player
30. In his duplica, the Player initially argued that FIFA is not competent to hear the present
claim, as the Contract clearly provided the competence of the NDRC of the FSS, and this
claim concerns a Serbian club and a Serbian player. According to the Player, the fact that
“at some point the ITC was requested by a new club does not mean that suddenly the matter
became “international”, as the termination in itself was exclusively done on the basis of Serbian
law, by Serbian parties and in Serbia”. Furthermore, “yet obviously, the lack of a compliant
NDRC can then not work to the detriment of the players in a FIFA DRC procedure, given that it is
the Club’s own choice that the NDRC is not compliant”.
31. The Player insisted in the application of Serbian law in the present dispute, as provided in
the Contract. In this respect, the Player also insisted that he had just cause to terminate
the Contract by operation of the law.
32. The Player further insisted that the offer of Čukarički was fabricated, and that no evidence
was submitted by Radnički to prove otherwise.
33. As to the calculation of the compensation allegedly due to Radnički, the Player argued that
the sign-on fee shall not be included.
34. Furthermore, the Player claimed being entitled to the residual value of the sign-on fee in
the amount of EUR 18,000.
35. The Player requested the following relief:
i. The FIFA DRC does not have competence to rule on this matter.
In the alternative:
ii. To reject the claim of the Club.
iii. To award the Player EUR 18,000 as the remaining part of the sign-on fee plus 5% interest as
from the due dates.
e. Position of Turon
36. Despite being invited to do so, Turon failed to reply to the claim.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-14665
f. Affiliation of Turon
37. The FIFA General Secretariat sent a letter to the Uzbekistan Football Association requesting
an update concerning Turon’s affiliation as well as participation in competitions under the
auspices of the federation.
38. In its reply, the Uzbekistan Football Association informed as follows:
“Herewith we refer to the above-mentioned subject and we would like to inform you that, FC
Turon is our affiliated club, which is taking part at the 1st league of Uzbekistan Championship”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
39. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the Chamber or the 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 17 May 2024 and submitted for decision on
29 August 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter, the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
40. 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. a) of the June
2024 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to hear disputes between clubs
and players in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability (articles 13-18) where
there has been an ITC request and a claim from an interested party in relation to said ITC
request, in particular regarding the issue of the ITC, sporting sanctions or compensation
for breach of contract. The DRC equally observed that, pursuant to art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of
the Regulations, the Chamber is also competent to hear employment-related disputes
between a club and a player of an international dimension.
41. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, on the one hand, the Player argued in his
reply to the claim that he could not rely on the NDRC of Serbia as allegedly it has been
blocked on several occasions, and it is allegedly under the control of the FSS. The Chamber
also noted that, in his duplica, the Player argued that FIFA is not competent to hear the
present claim based on Clause 13.5 of the Contract, which provides the exclusive
jurisdiction of the NDRC of Serbia, and that both Radnički and the Player share Serbian
nationality.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-14665
42. Before assessing its own competence in the matter at stake, the DRC found the Player’s
position concerning the competence of the NDRC of Serbia to be rather contradictory, and
concluded that in any event, although the Player disputed the competence of FIFA, he
confirmed that the NDRC of Serbia is not competent to hear this claim, as it does not meet
the requirements provided by the FIFA Circular letter 1010.
43. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chamber moved to the assessment of its competence
to adjudicate on the present matter. In doing so, the DRC reminded the Parties that in
accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to deal with
employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension,
unless an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings exists at national
level. The wording of the article in question clearly implies that the first condition that
needs to be compulsory fulfilled in order for FIFA to be competent to hear an employmentrelated dispute between a club and a player is that said dispute has an international
dimension. This means that FIFA is only competent to hear an employment-related dispute
of such kind when the parties have different nationalities.
44. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber noted that it is not disputed between the
parties that Radnički and the Player share Serbian nationality. Consequently, the Chamber
determined that art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations is not applicable in the present case,
as the competence of FIFA is subject to the employment-related dispute having an
international dimension, which is not the case.
45. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber did not fail to notice the issue of the involvement
of Turon, a club from Uzbekistan, in these proceedings, which in principle could trigger the
application of art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations, as the application of lit. b) of the cited
provision has been set aside. In this respect, the Chamber clarified that art. 22 par. 1 lit. a)
extends FIFA’s jurisdiction over disputes between players and clubs regarding the
maintenance of contractual stability where there has been an ITC request and a claim from
an interested party in relation to said ITC request, in particular regarding the issue of the
ITC, sporting sanctions or compensation for breach of contract. In other words, under the
scope of the cited provision, it is the issuance of the ITC and the fact that the new club is
affiliated to a different member association that gives the dispute an international
dimension, although the involvement of the new club is merely accessory as it is dependent
on the main dispute, which is the assessment of the existence of just cause and its
consequences for the party considered to be in breach.
46. In this respect, whenever a player moves between two clubs affiliated to different member
associations, such as in the present case, the player’s registration needs also to be
transferred between the two associations concerned. A player’s registration is certified by
means of the ITC, without which a player may not be registered by its new club via the
relevant member association. According to the Annexe 3, art. 8.2 par. 7 of the Regulations,
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-14665
there is only one valid reason to refuse to issue an ITC: a contractual dispute between the
former club and the player.
47. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred to the Commentary on the
Regulations, in accordance with which “decisions of this kind [concerning the registration of
the player with his new club] have an international impact, which is why only FIFA has the
power to issue the international clearance for a player to register with a new club. This is one of
the reasons why FIFA’s competence extends to these employment-related disputes, even if the
player and the club concerned share the same nationality. If a player wishes to transfer
internationally (i.e., to a club affiliated to another member association) and this leads to a
contractual dispute between the player and the club they wish to leave, it makes sense for the
international decision-making body deciding on the registration of a player to also have
jurisdiction to hear the employment-related dispute in question. It follows that the main reason
why FIFA assumes jurisdiction in these cases is because there is a foreign club involved, which
means that FIFA (and not, for example, a national tribunal) is best placed to adjudicate on such
matters” (cf. p. 458).
48. With the above considerations in mind, since the competence of FIFA under art. 22 par. 1
lit. a) of the Regulations requires that there has been an international dispute in relation to
the issuance of the Player’s ITC for his transfer from Radnički to Turon, the Chamber
considered it appropriate to recall the following events:
• On 6 January 2023, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract with Radnički.
• On 10 January 2023, the Player and Turon concluded an employment contract.
• On 25 January 2023, Turon contacted Radnički informing of the above, and requesting
the issuance of the ITC.
• Also on 25 January 2023, Radnički rejected the issuance of the Player’s ITC.
• On 23 February 2023, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Chamber granted the
Player’s registration with Turon.
49. Based on the above sequence of events, the Chamber considered that the existence of a
dispute in relation to the issuance of the ITC for the Player’s transfer is obvious and,
consequently, the Chamber determined that it is indeed competent to hear the present
claim under art. 22 par. 1 lit. a) of the Regulations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-14665
50. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 May 2024, the February 2024 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter, the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
51. For the sake of completeness, the DRC recalled that when deciding a dispute before the
Dispute Resolution Chamber, FIFA’s regulations prevail over any national law that the
parties might have chosen. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the main objective
of the FIFA regulations is to create a standard set of rules to which all the actors within the
football community are subject to and can rely on. This objective would not be achievable
if the Chamber would have to apply the national law of a specific party on every dispute
brought to it. By the same token, the Chamber wished to point out that it is in the interest
of football that the cases are based on uniform criteria rather than on provisions of national
law that may vary considerable from country to country. Therefore, the Chamber deemed
that it is not appropriate to apply the principles of a particular national law, but rather the
Regulations, general principles of law and, where existing, the Chamber’s well established
jurisprudence.
b. Admissibility of the Player’s counterclaim
52. The Chamber took note of the fact that, with his duplica, the Player lodged a counterclaim
and requested the payment of EUR 18,000, corresponding to the residual value of the signon fee agreed in the Contract.
53. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance
with which “The respondent(s) may submit a counterclaim with their response to the claim. A
counterclaim shall have the same form as a claim, and shall be submitted within the same time
limit as that for the response to the claim”. Furthermore, the Chamber also referred to art.
21 par. 6, which establishes that “A response to a counterclaim submitted after the time limit
expires will not be considered”.
54. Based on the foregoing provisions, the Chamber concluded that the Player did not validly
submit a counterclaim, as it was not lodged with his response to the claim and was not
submitted within the same time limit as that for the response to the claim. Consequently,
the DRC determined that the counterclaim of the Player is not admissible.
c. Burden of proof
55. 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-14665
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or
within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
d. Merits of the dispute
56. 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
57. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
the dispute at stake concerns the termination of the Contract by the Player and its
consequences.
58. The Chamber initially recalled the long-standing and well-established jurisprudence of the
Football Tribunal according to which only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain
severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In this respect, only
when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the
continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be
terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in
order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, and
vice versa, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. In
other words, a premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima
ratio measure.
59. With the above in mind, the DRC initially noted that, according to Radnički, the Contract
was abruptly terminated without just cause by the Player on 6 January 2023 after he failed
to put it in default. The Chamber also observed that, on his part, the Player confirmed that
this was indeed the reason to terminate the Contract, without disputing not having put
Radnički in default, but rather arguing that the termination of the Contract was a
consequence of the operation of the law. Furthermore, according to the Player, he had just
cause to terminate the Contract based on the fact that Radnički failed to pay the bonus
agreed in Clause 3.3 of the Contract, which provided a payment of EUR 150 for each point
won by Radnički in an official competition. According to the Player, the overall amount due
by Radnički was EUR 2,400, corresponding to 16 points.
60. Based on the foregoing submissions, the Chamber turned its attention to the assessment
as to whether the termination of the Contract by the Player was a consequence of a breach
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-14665
of misconduct of a certain severity which would have led the Player to terminate it without
prior notice.
61. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, according to the Contract, the Player’s monthly
remuneration was approximately EUR 3,323, composed of RSD 38,000 (equivalent to EUR
323) as his fixed monthly remuneration, as well as EUR 3,000 as a sign-on fee, also payable
on a monthly basis.
62. On account of the above, the Chamber observed that the amount that, according to the
Player, justified the termination of the Contract, was not even the equivalent to a single
monthly instalment (i.e., EUR 2,400 v. EUR 3,323).
63. Consequently, the DRC unanimously concluded that the default of Radnički towards the
Player could not be equated to a breach or a serious misconduct that would justify the
termination of the Contract, especially considering that the Player did not even put it in
default, i.e., the termination of the Contract was not an ultima ratio measure.
64. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Chamber determined that the Player
terminated the Contract without just cause, and thus shall be responsible of the
consequences thereof.
ii. Consequences
65. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to Radnički by the Player 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, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club
(amortised over the term of the contract) and depending on whether the contractual
breach falls within the protected period.
66. 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.
67. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-14665
68. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Player to Radnički 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.
69. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of Radnički, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of RSD 2,336,736
(i.e., monthly salary of RSD 38,000 times six plus RSD 2,108,736 as sign-on fee) is the
residual value of the Contract and serves as the basis for the determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract.
70. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time. According to the constant
practice of the Chamber as well as art. 17 par. 1 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 due by a player to his former club. In
particular, the Chamber explained that its standard practice is to calculate the average
between the player’s remuneration with his former club and his remuneration with the
new club, for the exact same period of time comprised between the early termination of
the employment contract with the old club and the original expiry date of such contract. In
case substantial evidence thereof is provided by the club, the Chamber might additionally
grant the damaged club the non-amortised transfer fee paid for the player in breach and/or
the actual costs incurred by the damaged club in order to replace the leaving player.
71. Indeed, the Player found new employment with Turon. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the player was entitled to EUR USD 5,000 per month and a sign-on
fee of USD 10,000, which corresponds to RSD 3,972,204 at the date of termination during
the relevant period.
72. Thus, the Chamber concluded that between the date of early termination of the Player’s
Contract with his former club and its original expiry date, the average between his
remuneration with the former club and his current remuneration amounts to RSD
3,154,470.
73. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Player must pay the amount of RSD
3,154,470 to Radnički, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
74. Lastly, taking into consideration Radnički’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award Radnički interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 January 2023 until the date of effective payment.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-14665
75. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the
Regulations, Turon shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned amount of compensation.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
76. 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 decisions, 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.
77. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted the following:
• According to art. 24 par. 2 lit. a), against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay
the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering 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.
• According to art. 24 par. 2 lit. b), against players, the consequence of the failure to pay
the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in official
matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the
restriction shall be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
78. Therefore bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Player and Turon must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to Radnički within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of Radnički:
• A restriction on playing in official matches up until the due amounts are paid and for
the overall maximum up to six months shall become immediately effective on the
Player, in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4 and 7 of the Regulations; and
• 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 Turon, in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4 and 7 of the
Regulations.
79. The Player and Turon shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by Radnički in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to
the present decision.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-14665
80. The Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban and/or restriction will be lifted
immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in
accordance with art. 28 par. 8 of the Regulations.
e. Costs
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-14665
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Radnički 1923.
2.
The claim of the Radnički 1923 is partially accepted.
3.
The First Respondent, Dušan Stoiljković, must pay to Radnički 1923 the following amount:
RSD 3,154,470 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 6 January 2023 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of Radnički 1923 are rejected.
5.
The Second Respondent, Turon, is jointly and severally liable for payment of the
aforementioned compensation.
6.
The counterclaim of Dušan Stoiljković is inadmissible.
7.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
8.
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. Dušan Stoiljković shall be imposed with a restriction on playing in official matches up
until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the restriction shall
be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
2. Turon shall be banned from registering new players, either nationally or internationally,
up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be up to three
and consecutive registration periods.
3. 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.
9.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of Radnički 1923 in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-14665
10. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-14665
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. 19