Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16931
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Saša Teofanov
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
CLAIMANT:
Saša Teofanov, Serbia
Represented by Dino Osmanovic
RESPONDENT:
SP Falcons, Mongolia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16931
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 13 August 2024, the Serbian player Saša Teofanov (hereinafter, the Claimant or the
Player) and the Mongolian club SP Falcons FC (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 10 August 2024
until 10 July 2025.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 6 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player as follows:
“6.1. The wage must be calculated from the first day of training in Mongolia.
6.2. League season monthly wage of the athlete is USD 800.
6.3. Non league 2024.11.01-2025.02.01 Monthly wage is USD 350.
6.2. (sic) The wage shall be paid in cash if the athlete doesn’t have bank account number. The
club may issue additional pay, awards and bonus to the athlete depending on the quality of the
athlete’s performance, result of the match, success by participating in domestic and
international competitions and circumstances that have led to a significant change in the club’s
profit (for instance qualifying for the next round), in which case it should be clearly stated.
6.3. (sic) Wage is calculated by rate of the athlete’s training and matching status and activity.
For example: if the athlete parts all trainings and matches, he then will receive the wage 100%”.
3.
Moreover, in accordance with Clause 8 of the Contract the Club undertook, inter alia, the
following obligations towards the Player:
“8.1.11. The club is responsible for buying a one-way ticket Sebia-Mongolia for the athlete when
he arrives in Mongolia, and a one-way ticket Mongolia-Serbia for the return in case the contract
is terminated without renewal”.
4.
On 31 August 2024, the Player and the Club’s head coach had the following conversation
via Instagram:
[Player]: “Hello coach how are you? This morning at training, my knee hurt I strained it a little
now I’m going straight from therapy the doctor tells me that it’s nothing serious and that I
strained the ligament a little I can’t jog and run right now”.
[Head coach]: “Hello. I’m good. Did he say how many days you need to recover?”.
[Player]: “He told me about a week”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16931
5.
On 2 September 2024, the Player arrived in Mongolia. The flight ticket was purchased and
provided by the Club.
6.
Between 3 September and 29 September 2024, the Player was treated at the Supreme Care
Clinic in Mongolia, and was diagnosed with “Muscoid degeneration in both menisci, meniscal
tear in anterior horn of lateral meniscus. Mild to moderate sprain in both collateral and
posterior cruciate ligament. Patellar tendinosis with surrounding edema. Popliteus
tendinopathy with adjacent trace fluid. Increased knee joint fluid. Developing baker’s cyst.
Ganglion cyst in posterior knee fossa”. The Club bore the costs of the Player’s treatment.
7.
On 5 October 2024, the Player put the Club in default and proposed the mutual termination
of the Contract in exchange for three monthly salaries. The Player granted the Club a
deadline of 15 days to proceed accordingly, otherwise he would unilaterally terminate the
Contract and seek compensation.
8.
The Player sent the aforementioned default notice via email to k*******[email protected].
9.
On 14 October, the parties had a meeting to discuss the injury of the Player.
10. On 22 October 2024, the Player terminated the Contract based on the existence of two
outstanding monthly salaries and abusive conduct. The Player also sent this email to
k*******[email protected].
11. On 28 October 2024 the Club handed the Player a signed statement in accordance with
which the parties mutually terminated the Contract on 26 October 2024, and that the
Player had nothing to claim from the Club. The Player refused to sign this document.
12. On 29 October 2024 the Player returned to Serbia, incurring in a cost of USD 547.60 for his
flight ticket.
13. On 5 November 2024, the Club replied to the Player’s email dated 22 October 2024,
rejecting his claims and arguing that he never started training.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16931
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 5 November 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
15. According to the Player, the Club repeatedly failed to remit his monthly remuneration, and
even requested from him reimbursement of costs relating to flight tickets, visa expenses,
medical costs and allowances in the total sum of MNT 6,672,250.
16. The Player sustained having suffered an injury on 30 August 2024, but argued that an injury
is not a justified cause to terminate an employment contract. Furthermore, the Player
sustained that he fulfilled all his contractual obligations, and that at no time did the Club
warn or sanction him.
17. The Player claimed having just cause to terminate the Contract on 22 October 2024 based
on the existence of outstanding salaries and on the abusive conduct of the Club by forcing
him to terminate the Contract.
18. In addition, the Player argued that “(…) it is evident that the intention of the contractual parties
was for the remuneration to be set on a monthly basis starting with the month of August 2024
in the amount of 800 USD, with a reduction in case of a non-league term. Hence, since the nonleague term is not precisely elaborated and justified, the above is a clear indication and evidence
of the intentions of the parties for the each net salary amount to correspond to 800 USD for
each of the month for the period till the intended end of the contractual relationship”. In this
respect, the Player sustained that the Club could unilaterally reduce his remuneration, and
considered Clauses 6.2 and 6.3 to be potestative.
19. Accordingly, the Player claimed being entitled to USD 1,600 as outstanding remuneration
for August and September 2024, as well as to compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of USD 10,947.60, i.e., USD 800 for October 2024 to July 2025, USD 547.60
corresponding to the flight ticket that the Player had to purchase, and USD 2,400 as
additional compensation.
20. The Player requested the following relief:
“In view of the foregoing, the Claimant respectfully requests FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to
rule as follows:
I. The Claim filed by [the Claimant] is fully upheld;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16931
II. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the amount of 1,600.00 USD on the name
of the overdue salaries payables, plus 5% calculating due interest accordingly;
III. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the amount of 10,947.60 USD on the
name of the damage compensation, plus 5% calculating due interest accordingly;
IV. Disciplinary sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent accordingly, due to serious
and constant breach of contractual and employer duties”.
b. Position of the Respondent
21. In its reply, the Club argued that the Player arrived in Mongolia on 2 September 2024, and
that the Club began providing him with medical treatment and accommodation, even
though he did not participate in any training or matches.
22. According to the Club, the Player concealed that he had a previous serious knee injury, and
he misled the Club by presenting his injury as a minor issue, which caused significant
financial and operation losses to it. In this regard, the Club pointed out that “We recognize
that this situation is a two-way issue. We accept our responsibility to be more diligent in our
player selection process. However, this should not overshadow the fact that [the Player]’s lack
of transparency fundamentally altered the course of the agreement, and we are now facing the
consequences of his actions”. The Club further argued that the injury occurred before the
Player joined it and outside Mongolia, and that “This lack of disclosure deprived the club of
the opportunity to assess the player’s fitness accurately and plan accordingly”.
23. The Club sustained having demonstrated an unwavering commitment to creating a
supportive environment for the Player, as it provided him with training gear, travel
arrangements, accommodation and covered the visa expenses and medical evaluations.
Moreover, the Club argued that the Player did not meet his contractual obligations, as he
did not participate in any trainings.
24. As such, and based on Clause 6.1 of the Contract, the Club rejected the Player’s entitlement
to any salaries, as he did not start training upon his arrival in Mongolia. Furthermore, that
the distinction between league season and non-league season salary derives from freedom
in negotiating and aligns with the regulations of FIFA. In this respect, the Club claimed that
even though unilateral reductions of salary are not permitted, in this case the parties
contractually agreed a monthly remuneration of USD 800 during the league season and of
USD 350 during the non-league season. Accordingly, the Club asserted that it did not
unilaterally reduce the Player’s salary.
25. The Club also sustained not having received the Player’s default notice dated 5 October
2024, that the Player did not mention it in the meeting held on 14 October 2024 and that it
only received it with the Player’s termination letter on 22 October 2024.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16931
26. Based on the above, the Club argued that the Player did not have a just cause to terminate
the Contract as, according to its Clause 6.1, the Club was not obliged to start paying his
remuneration until the Player started training. As such, the Club also rejected the Player’s
entitlement to compensation.
27. Moreover, the Club also rejected the Player’s entitlement to reimbursement, as allegedly
Clause 8.1.11 of the Contract only applies when the termination is mutually agreed upon
or initiated by the Club.
28. Lastly, the Club rejected the Player’s entitlement to an additional compensation arguing
that the Player purported physical and mental distress is without merit. The Club claimed
having supported the Player with accommodation and medical treatment, and that the
Player’s allegations are not supported with evidence. Accordingly, the Club sustained that
no egregious circumstances exist.
29. The Club requested the following relief:
“For the reasons set forth above, the Respondent respectfully requests that FIFA’s Dispute
Resolution Chamber:
I. Reject the Claimant’s request for relief in full;
II. Reject the claim for overdue salary payments in the amount of 1,600.00 USD;
III. Reject the claim for damage compensation in the amount of 10,947 USD;
IV. Reject the request for disciplinary sporting sanctions against the Respondent.
The Respondent respectfully submits that the Claimant’s claims are without merit and
should be dismissed accordingly.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16931
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 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 5 November 2024 and submitted for decision
on 30 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 of the January 2025 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 January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations), the DRC 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 Mongolian 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. 29 of the
Regulations (January 2025 edition), the January 2025 edition of said 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16931
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
35. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerned
a claim by a player against a club for breach of contract and its consequences.
36. The DRC initially observed that, according to the Player, the Club failed to remit his monthly
remuneration for August and September 2024. As such, the Player argued that he had a
just cause to terminate the Contract on 22 October 2024 under art. 14bis of the
Regulations, after having put the Club in default, to no avail. Accordingly, the Player claimed
being entitled to USD 1,600 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the
aforementioned monthly instalments (i.e., USD 800 each) as well as to compensation for
breach of contract in the amount of USD 10,947.60, representing (i) the residual value of
the Contract (i.e., USD 800 for October 2024 to July 2025), (ii) an additional compensation
of USD 2,400 and (iii) the costs incurred for the flight ticket in the amount of USD 547.60.
37. The Chamber also observed that, on its part, the Club argued that the Player arrived in
Mongolia on 2 September 2024 with an injury that he had concealed. In addition, the Club
sustained that the Player never started training, and therefore argued that, pursuant to
Clause 6.1 of the Contract, it did not have the obligation to pay his monthly remuneration.
Based on the foregoing, the Club rejected that the Player had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the Contract.
38. In view of the arguments raised by the parties, the Chamber deemed that its task in the
present matter was to address the following questions:
I.
Is Clause 6.1 of the Contract enforceable?
II.
Did the Player have a just cause to terminate the Contract?
III. In such a case, what are the consequences?
***
I.
Is Clause 6.1 of the Contract enforceable?
39. In order to analyse the first question, the members of the Chamber first noted that it was
undisputed that on 13 August 2024 the parties concluded the Contract, which would be
valid as from 10 August 2024 until 10 July 2025.
40. It was also undisputed that, notwithstanding the above, the Club did not provide the Player
with a flight ticket to travel to Mongolia until 2 September 2024, and that the Player suffered
a knee injury on 31 August 2024, i.e., (i) during the term of the Contract and (ii) before the
Player arrived in Mongolia.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16931
41. Finally, the DRC also noted that the Club did not dispute that the Player unilaterally
terminated the Contract on 22 October 2024.
42. Nevertheless, and despite the validity of the Contract, the DRC noted that the Club rejected
the Player’s claim based on Clause 6.1 of the Contract, in accordance with which “The wage
must be calculated from the first day of training in Mongolia”. In this regard, according to the
Club, since the Player was injured, and he never started training, the Club had no obligation
to pay his remuneration. At the same time, the Chamber also noted that the Club
confirmed having provided the Player with accommodation and having covered the visa
expenses and his medical evaluations in Mongolia.
43. As a preliminary remark, and as expressly acknowledged by the Club in its submission, the
Chamber wished to recall that a club wishing to employ a player has to exercise due
diligence and carry out all relevant medical examinations prior to entering into an
employment contract with a player. In this respect, if a club fails to abide by this
fundamental principle, and instead decides to sign the contract before it receives
confirmation that the player is fit and healthy, it does so as its own risk.
44. With the above in mind, the DRC underscored that the fact that a player is injured cannot
justify that that a club stops (or, in this case, never starts) paying his monthly remuneration
as agreed. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that, in casu, the Player indeed reported
to the Club and followed its instructions regarding the injury and its treatment.
45. In addition, the Chamber recalled the well-established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal in accordance with which the economic consequences of a player’s injury shall be
managed with a proper insurance policy, and that a reduction of a player’s salary (or, in the
case at hand, failure to pay the agreed salary) is considered an abusive behaviour.
46. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber unanimously decided that Clause 6.1 of the Contract
cannot have any legal effect between the parties, and therefore rejected the Club’s position
in this regard.
II. Did the Player have a just cause to terminate the Contract?
47. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved forward to the next question
to be tackled in the present matter, i.e., whether, as claimed by the Player, he had a just
cause to terminate the Contract based on art. 14bis of the Regulations after the Club failed
to remit his monthly remuneration for August and September 2024.
48. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16931
unpaid by the Club and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
49. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis 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 obligations.
50. The DRC noted that the Player claimed not having received his remuneration
corresponding to August and September 2024, amounting to USD 800 each. Furthermore,
the Chamber noted that the Player provided written evidence of having put the Club in
default on 5 October 2024, at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on
22 October 2024.
51. On this particular point, the Chamber also noted that, according to the Club, it never
received the aforementioned default notice on 5 October 2024, but only on 22 October
2024 together with the termination letter.
52. Nonetheless, the Chamber found that, on the basis of the evidence provided by the Player,
he indeed put the Club in default on 5 October 2024 by sending an email to
k*******[email protected], which is not only the same email address to which he ultimately
sent the termination letter on 22 October 2024 (the receipt of which was acknowledged by
the Club), but also the Club’s email address as indicated in TMS. Consequently, the DRC
decided to reject the Club’s argument regarding the (non)notification of the Player’s default
notice.
53. The DRC further noted that in the case at hand the Club bore the burden of proving that it
indeed complied with the financial terms of the Contract. Nonetheless, the Chamber
recalled that the Club confirmed not having paid the salaries claimed to the Player.
54. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Player had a just cause to
unilaterally terminate the Contract on 22 October 2024, based on art. 14bis of the
Regulations, and that the Club is therefore liable for the consequences that follow.
III. What are the consequences?
55. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
56. In doing so, the DRC noted that, according to the Player, pursuant to Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of
the Contract, the monthly salary would be of USD 800 with a reduction in case of a “nonleague term”, which allegedly constitutes a unilateral reduction of his emoluments. In
addition, the Player argued that this “non-league term” was allegedly not precisely defined
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16931
in the Contract, and consequently claimed that the monthly salary was of USD 800 per
month, i.e., without any reduction.
57. The Chamber also noted that, on its part, the Club sustained that the distinction made in
the Contract between “league season” and “non-league season” derives from the freedom
in negotiating, and that such distinction is clearly indicated in the Contract and does not
constitute a unilateral reduction on the Player’s salary.
58. In view of the foregoing arguments, the Chamber turned its attention to the wording of
Clauses 6.2 and 6.3 of the Contract, and observed that they provided as follows:
“6.2. League season monthly wage of the athlete is USD 800.
6.3. Non league 2024.11.01-2025.02.01 Monthly wage is USD 350”.
59. After having carefully analysed the foregoing provision, the Chamber considered that, as
opposed to the Player’s arguments, it clearly stipulated that his remuneration would be of
800 USD for the months of August, September and October 2024, and for February to July
2025, while the remuneration for November and December 2024, as well as for January
2025, would be of USD 350.
60. In view of the above, the DRC found that the aforementioned Clauses 6.2 and 6.3 of the
Contract do not constitute a potestative unilateral reduction of the Player’s salary in favour
of the Club, but rather a valid agreement that should be respected based on the legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda.
61. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that the outstanding remuneration and compensation
payable by the Club to the Player will be calculated in accordance with Clauses 6.2 and 6.3
of the Contract.
62. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber observed that the outstanding
remuneration at the time of termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the
Player, is equivalent to USD 2,400, corresponding to the monthly remuneration for August,
September and October 2024 (i.e., USD 800 each).
63. As a consequence, and in accordance with the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Club is liable to pay the Claimant the amounts which were
outstanding under the Contract at the moment of termination, i.e., USD 2,400.
64. 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, taking into account the damage suffered,
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16931
according to the “positive interest” principle, having regard to the individual facts and
circumstances of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned.
65. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
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.
66. 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.
67. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by
the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters
set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
68. 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
until its term.
69. The DRC noted that, pursuant to Clauses 6.2 and 6.3 of the Contract, the Player would have
been entitled to USD 5,850 had the Contract not been terminated, according to the
following calculation:
- USD 350 for November 2024 to January 2025, i.e., USD 1,050; and
- USD 800 for February to July 2025, i.e., USD 4,800; and
70. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 5,850 serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
71. In continuation, the Chamber verified 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
Chamber 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.
72. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
73. The Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case
the player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract,
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16931
as a general rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that
was prematurely terminated.
74. In this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Player compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of USD 5,850, i.e., per the foregoing calculation, as the residual value
of the Contract.
75. At this point, the DRC took note of the Player’s request for additional compensation in the
amount of USD 2,400. In this respect, the Chamber made reference to art. 17 par. 1 lit. i)
and ii) of the Regulations to emphasise that the compensation granted was equivalent to
the residual value of the Contract, and that the overall compensation may never exceed
the residual value of the prematurely terminated contract.
76. Accordingly, the Chamber rejected the Player’s request for additional compensation.
77. Lastly, the members of the DRC also noted that the Player claimed being entitled to USD
547.60 in connection with the flight ticket he had to incur to travel back to Serbia, based on
Clause 8.1.11 of the Contract.
78. The Chamber noted that the Club, on its part, argued that Clause 8.1.11 of the Contract
would only apply if the Contract had been mutually terminated or initiated by the Club.
79. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, pursuant to 8.1.11 of the Contract, “The club is
responsible for buying a one-way ticket Sebia-Mongolia for the athlete when he arrives in
Mongolia, and a one-way ticket Mongolia-Serbia for the return in case the contract is terminated
without renewal”.
80. The DRC found that, as opposed to the Club’s argument, the aforementioned provision did
not specifically stipulate that the reimbursement was only payable in case the Contract was
mutually terminated or initiated by the Club.
81. In view of the clear wording of Clause 8.1.11 of the Contract, and also considering that the
Player presented the relevant evidence of the expenses incurred, the Chamber decided to
award him the reimbursement of USD 547.60.
82. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the DRC in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5% per
annum on the outstanding amounts, the compensation and the reimbursement as from
the date of the claim, i.e., 5 November 2024, until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
83. 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16931
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.
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. 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.
d. Costs
88. 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.
89. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the DRC recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8
of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in
these proceedings.
90. Lastly, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16931
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Saša Teofanov, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, SP Falcons, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- USD 2,400 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 5
November 2024 until the date of effective payment;
- USD 5,850 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest per annum as
from 5 November 2024 until the date of effective payment; and
- USD 547.60 as reimbursement plus 5% interest per annum as from 5 November 2024
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.
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. 16
REF. FPSD-16931
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. 17