Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11352
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 February 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Natela Tsotseria
BY:
Calum Beattie (Scotland)
CLAIMANT:
Natela Tsotseria, Georgia
RESPONDENT:
FK Saned, Lithuania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11352
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 March 2023, the Georgian player, Natela Tsotseria (hereinafter: Claimant or player)
and the Lithuanian club, FK Saned (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 1 March 2023 until 1 March 2024
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of EUR 700.
3.
On 21 July 2023, the Claimant terminated the contract with the Respondent due to its
failure to pay her salaries from commencement date of the contract despite numerous
requests to do so.
4.
On 1 September 2023, the player concluded an employment contract with the Georgian
club, Kvartali valid as from 1 September 2023 until 1 January 2024 for a monthly salary of
GEL 500.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 15 August 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
6.
According to the Claimant, the club “failed to fulfill contract obligations, namely outstanding
salaries from the start of the contract period (01.03.2023) until the present time, despite my
repeated inquiries and eventual official notification on 21.07.2023 and apart from the financial
situation, the club has failed to provide me with relevant training opportunities, gathering
players only on matchdays and offering inadequate food supplies.”
7.
The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“I hereby want to request full compensation of my salary for the period of my one-year contract
with the club – 8,400 euros (01.03.2023 to 01.03.2024) for the breach of the contract”
b. Position of the Respondent
8.
In its reply the Respondent, mentioned the following:
-
“After concluding the 2023 March 1 contract with the player Natela Tsotseria, it turned out that
this player has a valid contract with the Turkish football club Unye Gucu, according to which she
was still playing in the Turkish League representing this club.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11352
-
-
-
-
9.
A representative of the Turkish club informed us that we were misled by the player's scout. The
scout asked for our club's consent that the player will arrive only after the season in Turkey, i.e.
in 2023 April 30 Our club sent consent in 2023. March 27th, we have proof of dispatch.
Turkish football club Unye Gucu have informed us that they will contact FiFa and inform them
of the situation.
The girl arrived in Lithuania in 2023. April 29 (FK Saned club bought the plane ticket).
FK Saned Natela Tsotseria played in the Lithuanian A League Women's Championship until 2023.
June 15
The girl left for Georgia in 2023. June 20 not even playing in the second round of the last two
matches.
Club Saned was left without a player without having another player in that position.
Due to the situation with the Turkish club, since the arrival of the girl, we have agreed that she
will play until the break of the championship and we will not conclude any professional contract,
as both the physical and psychological condition of the player was unsatisfactory.
Also, before the match in Vilnius with FK Žalgiris team, in the first round in May, the girl showed
us a letter that she was disqualified from the Turkish league, so we did not register her for this
competition and only after finding out that this disqualification is not valid in Lithuania, she
started playing again in our club.
The arrived player Natela Tsotseria had no motivation to play in Lithuania for the Joniškis city
team.
There was also constant non-fulfillment of the coach's tasks.
Therefore, we did not conclude a contract and were informed that we would only pay for her
food, hotel and the time actually played (from April 30 to June 14)”
Additionally, the club made reference to the official invitation letter it submitted to the
player.
c. Unsolicited comments of the Claimant
10. The Claimant submitted the following unsolicited comments, which, inter alia, stated:
-
“The fact is that the contract was concluded between your club and me and the contract was
valid until 01.03.2024 before I terminated it unilaterally.
As for the Turkish club Unye Gucu, my amateur ITC was sent from Georgian Football Federation
and Turkey registered me as an amateur player, so I did not have a contract with them
The football environment in your club was too complicated, you have not paid for my salary and
my professional career would not develop in case I stayed with you, so I had no other option to
terminate the contract”
d. TMS Information
11. On 27 March 2023, the Lithuanian Football Federation (LFF) requested the ITC from The
Turkish Football Federation (TFF) which was delivered on 28 March 2023. (Note: player’s
status at TFF indicated as amateur)
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11352
12. On 1 September 2023, the Georgian Football Federation (GFF), requested the player’s ITC
from LFF which was delivered on 5 September 2023, confirming that the player was
deregistered at the LFF on 15 June 2023.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11352
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
13. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 August 2023
and submitted for decision on 7 February 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.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players May 2023 edition), the Single Judge is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Georgian player and a Lithuanian club.
15. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 August 2023, the May 2023 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
16. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
17. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established; the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11352
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
18. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and took note of the fact that the Claimant justified the early termination of the
contract, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the
Respondent.
19. The Single Judge additionally noted that the Respondent argued that it did not conclude a
professional contract with the player as the player still had a contract with a Turkish club
and due to this situation, “since the arrival of the player, it allegedly agreed that she will play
until the break of the championship, as both the physical and psychological condition of the
player was unsatisfactory.”
20. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge started by recalling his well-established
jurisprudence which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered
as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it
should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the
contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship and the remuneration
payable by the employer to the employee.
21. In casu, after a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the Single Judge concluded
that all such elements were included in the document filed by the player. In other words,
the Single Judge understood that the document concluded by the parties (i.e., the contract
concluded on 1 March 2023) indeed included all the relevant information at the basis of an
employment relationship between contractual parties. Specifically, the document contains
the signature of both parties, provides for the duration of the employment relationship
and the remuneration payable to the player. Thus, the Single Judge concluded that the
contract is in fact a valid and binding employment contract and shall be considered in the
case at stake, as the contractual basis of the present dispute.
22. In continuation, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant claims not having received her
remuneration corresponding for a period of at least two months.
23. In this regard the Single Judge remarked that the Respondent bore the burden of proving
that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the
parties, which it failed to do.
24. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally
terminate the contract on 21 July 2023.
ii. Consequences
25. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11352
26. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge 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., EUR
2,800 corresponding to the salaries of March, April, May, and June 2023.
27. Having stated the above, the Single Judge 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 Single
Judge 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.
28. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
29. As a consequence, the members of the Single Judge 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 Single Judge recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
30. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
concluded that the amount of EUR 5,600 serves as the basis for the determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
31. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11352
32. Indeed, the player found employment with the Georgian club, Kvartali valid as from 1
September 2023 until 1 January 2024. In accordance with the pertinent employment
contract, the player was entitled to a salary of GEL 500 per month. Therefore, the Single
Judge concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of GEL 2,500
(approximately EUR 840).
33. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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.
34. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the amount of additional compensation
of EUR 2,100, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
35. The Single Judge reminded the parties that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii)
of the Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the
prematurely terminated contract.
36. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay the amount
of EUR 5,600 to the player (i.e., EUR 5,600 minus EUR 840 plus EUR 2,100, limited to a
maximum of EUR 5,600), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
37. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
38. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
39. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-11352
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.
40. 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.
41. The Single Judge 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
42. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
43. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
44. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-11352
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Natela Tsotseria, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FK Saned, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 2,800 as outstanding remuneration
- EUR 5,600 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-11352
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
pg. 12