Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 21-00193
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Dang Van
Lam
BY:
Frans de Weger (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member
Jose Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT/ COUNTER RESPONDENT:
Dang Van Lam, Vietnam
Represented by Mr. Yury Zaytsev, Mr. Ilya Chicherov and Mr. Yury
Yakhno
RESPONDENT/ COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
SCG Muangthong United FC, Thailand
Represented by Mr. Christophe Larrouilh
INTERVENING PARTY:
Cerezo Osaka, Japan
Page 2
REF 21-00193
I.
Facts of the case
1. On 25 December 2018, the Vietnamese player, Dang Van Lam (hereinafter: the Claimant/
Counter-Respondent or the Player), and the Thai club, SCG Muangthong United FC
(hereinafter: the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant or the Club) signed an employment contract,
valid as from 1 January 2019 until 31 December 2021. The employment contract did not
include a provision specifying the email address or another means of communication the
Claimant/ Counter-Respondent had to direct any inquiries to.
2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant undertook
to pay to the Claimant inter alia USD 550,000, payable as follows:
- USD 150,000 for 2019 (divided into 12 monthly instalments);
- USD 200,000 for 2020 (divided into 12 monthly instalments);
- USD 200,000 for 2021 (divided into 12 monthly instalments).
3. By correspondence dated 21 December 2020, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent sent a letter
to the email address “[email protected]”, which was indicated on the Respondent/
Counter Claimant`s official website in the "Contact Us" section. This letter provided, inter alia,
as follows:
“[T]he Club failed to fulfill its obligation to pay the Player his full remuneration from
March 2020 until November 2020, illegitimately deducting 30% of the Player`s
monthly salary. According to Art. 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (the “RSTP”). Clubs are required to comply with their financial
obligations towards players as per the terms stipulated in the contracts signed with
their professional players. What is more, any club found to have delayed a due
payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be
sanctioned.
What is more, pursuant to Art. 14bis of the RSTP, in the case of a club unlawfully
failing 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.
Given all the mentioned above and bearing in mind that the total debt of the Club
before the Player exceeds two Player`s monthly salaries, acting on behalf of Mr Dang
Van Lam, I kindly ask the Club to immediately cease breaching the Contract and to
repay the debt in full within the following 15 days. Otherwise, my client reserves his
rights to terminate the Contract with a just cause in form of the Club`s overdue
payables exceeding two monthly salaries in accordance with Art. 14bis of the RSTP
and to lodge a claim before the FIFA demanding payment of the debt, the relevant
interest, imposition of sporting sanctions on the Club and compensation for
termination of the Contract due to the Club`s breach in order to protect his legitimate
interests.”
Page 3
REF 21-00193
4. On 6 January 2021, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated his contract
stating the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant had failed to pay at least two monthly salaries.
5. On 7 January 2021, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant replied and stated that it had not
received the Claimant’s default notice, as it was sent to a previous email address, thereby
rejecting the validity of the default notice. Additionally, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant
stated that the temporary salary reduction was accepted by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
and authorized by the Thai FA.
6. On 9 January 2021, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent contested the contents of the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant’s letter of 7 January 2021 and questioned the fact the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant did not receive the default notice but received the termination
notice, which was sent to the same email address.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7. On 4 February 2021, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent 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/Counter-Respondent
8. According to the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to
pay his full remuneration as from March 2020, by illegitimately deducting 30% of his monthly
salary. The Claimant/ Counter-Respondent adds that starting as from March 2020, the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant paid him only USD 11,667 per month, while he was entitled
to USD 16,667.
9. Consequently, according to the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent, in December 2020, the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant was in default for the amount of USD 45,000 (USD 5,000 x 9
(months from March to November 2020 inclusive).
10. The Claimant/ Counter-Respondent adds that on 21 December 2020, his representative sent
a
default
notice
to
the
Respondent/
Counter-Claimant`s
email
address
[email protected], which was indicated on the Respondent`s official website in the
section “contact us”, requesting the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant “to immediately cease
breaching the contract and to repay the debt in full within the following 15 days i.e. until 5
January 2021” with a warning that he “reserves his rights to terminate the contract with a just
cause in case of overdue payables exceeding two monthly salaries in accordance with Art.
14bis of the RSTP”, however, to no avail.
11. As a result, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent submits that on 6 January 2021, he unilaterally
terminated the contract, because of outstanding salaries and that on 7 January 2021, the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant replied and stated that it had not received the default notice,
Page 4
REF 21-00193
as it was sent to a previous email address, thereby rejecting the validity of the default notice.
Additionally, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant stated that the temporary salary reduction
was accepted by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and authorized by the Thai FA.
12. The Claimant/ Counter-Respondent adds that he contested the contents of the above letter
on 9 January 2021 and submitted that since the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant is fully
responsible for updating its contact details and checking its email box, it is to blame for failing
to monitor its email in time and should be deemed to have received the default notice.
13. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent holds that in January 2021, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant asked several players to sign an agreement devoted to
legitimizing the reduction of 30% from March to November 2020 inclusive ex post facto.
However, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent never signed such agreement. By asking its other
players to sign such agreements, it can be established that the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant
understood itself that the reduction of 30% was illegal.
14. What is more, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent submits that he properly put the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant in default and properly terminated the contract under art.
14bis of the RSTP with just cause, based on the outstanding salaries (USD 50,000 as
outstanding part of the salaries due in the period between March and December 2020 and
USD 3,225.87 as pro rata salary for the period between 1 and 6 January 2021).
15. In conclusion, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent considers that the Respondent/ CounterClaimant must be obliged to pay the outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD
53,225.87.
16. In regards to compensation, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent argues that it is evident that
the contract was due to expire on 31 December 2021, whereas he terminated the contract
prematurely on 6 January 2021, due to overdue payables. As a result, the Claimant/ CounterRespondent deems that he is in principle entitled to compensation for breach of contract as in
the total amount of USD 196,778.
17. The Claimant/ Counter-Respondent adds that he signed a new contract and was able to
mitigate his losses in full. Nevertheless, as the termination was due to overdue payables, the
Claimant/ Counter-Respondent argues that he is entitled to additional compensation in the
amount of USD 200,000 (annual remuneration) x 3 / 12 = USD 50,000.
b. Position of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
18. The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant in its reply rejected the claim of the Claimant/ CounterRespondent and submitted a counterclaim against the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent and his
new club, Cerezo Osaka, Japan.
Page 5
REF 21-00193
19. According to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, the league in Thailand was suspended on 3
March 2020, due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic for an indefinite period, which
suspension was extended several times and that in the end, the competition only resumed on
12 September 2020.
20. According to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, as a result of the financial crisis caused by
the above suspensions, on 3 March 2020, it organized several meetings with all players to
negotiate and/or propose a 30% salary reduction, with the promise to re-imburse the
difference in the event that it was able to pay back the said deductions, as at that moment it
was impossible ‘to predict the future’.
21. The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant adds that the proposal was accepted orally by all the
foreign employees (players and coaches), except two players: Derley (Vanderley Dias Marhino)
and Diasuke Sato.
22. On the legitimacy of said reductions, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant submits that it was
compliant with Thai labour law, which provides for the notion of force majeure. The
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant further submits that article 75 of the Thai Labour Protection
Act provides for cases of force majeure and states that when the conditions of force majeure
are met, the principle of the autonomy of contract enables the parties to modify their
contractual obligations. The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant therefore submits that it could
reduce the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent’s salary on the simple ground of the force majeure
and that said reduction was reasonable and proportionate pursuant to the guiding principles
proposed by FIFA.
23. According to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, even if the qualification of force majeure is
to be analysed, it is obvious that when a government imposes on a sports federation the
suspension of its professional leagues, the clubs involved in the suspended championships, are
victims of a force majeure event. In that context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant submits
that the deduction of only 30% “was very generous”.
24. Considering all those arguments above, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant states that it is
doubtful that the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent could refuse in any case the deduction of his
salary and that is probably why he never expressed any refusal.
25. According to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, from March 2020 to December 2020, the
Claimant/ Counter-Respondent received, despite of the suspension of the league, a monthly
salary as of USD 11,667.
26. On 3 January 2021, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant submits that the Claimant/ CounterRespondent attended the training but “disappeared 3 days later asking his teammate, Willian
Popp, to give back to the club the keys of his apartment and his car”.
Page 6
REF 21-00193
27. The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant adds that it attempted to contact the Claimant/ CounterRespondent’s agent on 6 January 2021, who stated that the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent
had sent a letter to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant on 21 December 2020.
28. According to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent’s agent
probably received an offer from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s new club, the Japanese
club Cerezo Osaka, but that said club was probably not ready to pay any transfer fees.
Therefore, the only way to conclude the transfer was that the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent
would break his contract with the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant. Thus, the Respondent/
Counter-Claimant submits that the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent built legal arguments
trying to pretend that the reduction of salaries proposed by the Club was never accepted by
him and therefore, has to be analysed as outstanding remuneration.
29. The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant submits that it tried to get the Claimant/ CounterRespondent to return, by also contacting his new club, however, to no avail, as the Claimant/
Counter-Respondent had already signed a new contract with his new club and FIFA had
approved the provisional registration. This decision - according to the Respondent/ CounterClaimant - was a real surprise, as it was never informed officially by its federation of the
existence of the dispute and also never been invited to present its arguments.
30. In view of all the above, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant submits that the Claimant/
Counter-Respondent terminated his contract without just cause as his default notice was sent
to the wrong email address and the fact that he accepted the salary deductions.
31. According to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, it did not require the Claimant/ CounterRespondent’s acceptance of said reductions, as they were "reasonable and proportionate" and
that he did not challenge this reduction for almost 9 months.
32. In view of the above reasons, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant requests that the Claim of
the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent should be rejected and its counter claim accepted.
33. The requests for relief of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, were the following:
- reject all claims of the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent and order him to pay an amount of
USD 266,666 as compensation for breach of contract, as well as USD 300,000 as ‘damages’,
plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date of termination;
- that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s new club, Cerezo Osaka, be held jointly and
severally liable for the payment of compensation in the amount of USD 266,666;
- that the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent’s new club be ordered to pay a transfer fee of USD
1,000,000;
- that the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent be ordered to pay legal and procedural costs.
Page 7
REF 21-00193
c. Response to the counterclaim by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
34. The Claimant/ Counter-Respondent in reply to the counterclaim maintains all his arguments
contained in the statement of claim.
35. However, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent adds that bearing in mind several
unsubstantiated and ex post facto arguments and requests from the Respondent/ CounterClaimant, he submits that he strongly disagrees with the opinion of the Respondent/ CounterClaimant that he failed to execute the termination process properly, because he sent the
relevant default notice (which, according to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, it had not
received) and the termination letter via email.
36. In this regard, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent emphasizes that both emails dated 21
December 2020 and 6 January 2021 to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant were sent to the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant’s email [email protected], which was indicated on
its official website “Contact Us” section.
37. What is more, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent states that the email dated 6 January 2021
was clearly received by the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant and that it is absurd that the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant claims to have not received the one dated 21 December 2020,
since it was sent to the same email address.
38. In regards to the salary reduction, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent states that in his letter
dated 21 December 2020, he expressed his disagreement to the Respondent/ CounterClaimant. The Claimant adds that any witness statements in this regard, submitted by the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant‘s employees, (who would potentially be clearly interested in
the outcome of the present procedure) and stating that the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent
had accepted the reduction, cause serious doubts of their truthfulness. What is more,
according to the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent, such witness statements are not enough to
prove that the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent agreed to the reduction – only a written
document could have proved that.
39. Moreover, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent notes that the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant
justifies the reduction by reference to Thai labour law and states that Thai law is of no relevance
to the case at hand. Consequently, the Claimant submits that the Respondent/ CounterClaimant’s referrals to Thai law must be disregarded by the DRC.
40. The Claimant/ Counter-Respondent also highlights that the current practice of the DRC
establishes that COVID-19 pandemic cannot per se be recognized as force majeure and,
consequently, cannot serve as a justification of an employee`s salary reduction.
41. In conclusion, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent submits that he terminated the contract
with just cause and therefore rejects the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant’s claim for
compensation.
Page 8
REF 21-00193
a. Response to the counter claim by Intervening Party
42. In spite being invited to do so, the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent’s new club, FC Cerezo
Osaka, did not reply to the counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
43. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note
that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 4 February 2021 and submitted for decision
on 14 October 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the October 2021
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.
44. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Vietnamese player and a Thai club,
with the intervention of a Japanese club.
45. 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 (August 2021 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 February 2021, the October 2020 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
46. 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).
Page 9
REF 21-00193
c. Merits of the dispute
47. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the
Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of
the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
48. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that according to the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent, he terminated
the contract with just cause and is therefore requesting to be awarded outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
49. The Chamber also noted that on the other hand, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant rejected
the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and filed a counter claim against him for
unilateral termination of the contract without just case. The Chamber also took note of the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant’s request that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and his new
club (the intervening party) be held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation
due to it.
50. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine:
i) whether the employment contract was terminated by the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent
with just cause or without just cause on 6 January 2021; and
ii) what the amount of compensation is to be paid to the injured party.
i)
Was the employment contract terminated with or without just cause on 6 January
2021?
51. The first question to be answered by the Chamber is whether the employment contract was
terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent on 6 January
2021. In this regard, the Chamber wished to underline that it is not in dispute between the
Parties that the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant reduced the salary of the Claimant/ CounterRespondent by USD 5,000 per month between March 2020 up to and including November
2020, amounting to a total reduction of USD 45,000.
52. The Chamber deemed it vital to outline that, also in light of the COVID-19 Guidelines that
were issued by FIFA (“the COVID-19 Guidelines”), a salary reduction because of COVID-19 is
allowed in case the parties have reached an agreement on such reduction. The Chamber firstly
Page 10
REF 21-00193
notes that the Parties had in any case not captured the agreement to reduce the Claimant/
Counter-Respondent’s salary in a written document signed by both Parties.
53. However, based on the evidence on file, the Chamber notes that the League in Thailand was
suspended for 7 months and that the first time that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
appears to have raised an objection regarding the reduction was on 21 December 2020 (by
means of the default notice); i.e. almost 9 months after said reduction was applied by the
Respondent/ Counter-Claimant. Over a period of almost 9 months the Claimant/ CounterRespondent therefore collected his reduced monthly salary apparently without ever having
objected or complained about it to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. This, in the Chamber’s
view, means that, more likely than not, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent tacitly accepted the
reduction or, at the very least, tolerated it, thereby inducing the legitimate expectation on the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s part that the reduction had been accepted).
54. Consequently, given the very particular circumstances of this case and assessing it in light of
the COVID-19 Guidelines, the above-referenced salary reductions must be deemed to have
been tacitly accepted, or at least tolerated, by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, and
therefore the members of the Chamber concluded that the employment contract was
terminated without just cause by the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent on 6 January 2021.
ii)
What is the amount of compensation to be paid to the injured party?
55. Having established that the employment contract was terminated without just cause, the
Chamber had to determine what amount of compensation is due by the Claimant/ CounterRespondent to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant. In this regard, the Chamber wished to
recall that the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant requested an amount of USD 266,666, equal to
the “remaining salary”, and USD 300,000 “for having brought discredit to the Club”.
56. In accordance with the employment contract, the remaining value of the contract was only
USD 200,000. The Chamber noted however that the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant
additionally requested USD 66,666 as the new season would end in April 2022, and therefore
the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent was bound by the employment contract until 30 April
2022 in accordance with the COVID-19 Guidelines. The Chamber disagreed that the contract
would run until 30 April 2022 and that the residual value of the contract would include USD
66,666. Indeed, while the COVID-19 Guidelines propose that clubs and players agree that the
expiry of employment contracts shall be extended until the end date of the season, any
extension is subject to the agreement of the parties. In this case, no such agreement was
concluded.
57. With regard to the amount of USD 300,000 “for having brought discredit to the Club”, the
Chamber also rejected this request for moral damages due to a lack of a substantive and legal
basis. Based on the aforementioned, for the purposes of the calculation for compensation that
could be due to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the residual value of the contract would
be deemed to amount to USD 200,000.
Page 11
REF 21-00193
58. However, for the reasons that follow, the Chamber concluded that, given the very particular
circumstances of this case, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant should not be entitled to any
compensation.
59. In fact, the Chamber first noted that the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant did not clearly and
unambiguously communicate in writing to the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent about the salary
reduction nor that it, for example, got the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent’s acceptance in
writing. Therefore, even though the Chamber concluded that the Claimant/CounterRespondent should be deemed to have tacitly accepted the reduction or at least tolerated it,
the Chamber also acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s course of action
contributed to creating a situation of uncertainty as to what extent the Claimant/CounterRespondent was fully aware of said reduction or if he agreed to it.
60. Moreover, the members of the Chamber noted that by not responding to the default notice
sent by the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent, which was sent to an official email address that
was retrieved from its official website, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant played a role in the
decision of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to terminate the contract, by potentially
creating a conviction on the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent’s side that he had legitimately
objected to the reduction and could therefore legally terminate the contract. With respect to
the position of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant that the email address retrieved from the
website was “not used” by executives, the Chamber found that it was the Respondent/
Counter- Claimant’s duty to ensure that the email address on its website is active, also noting
that it did not include a provision specifying its email address in the employment agreement.
61. The foregoing having been established, the members of the Chamber concluded that, even
though the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not have just cause to terminate the contract,
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s conduct contributed to a significant extent to said
termination and therefore to any damages that it may have sustained as a consequence. On
the basis of all of the above and given the very particular circumstances of this case, the
members of the Chamber concluded that the only fair and reasonable outcome in the matter
at hand would be that the compensation to be paid to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant
should be reduced to zero.
62. The DRC concluded its deliberations by deciding that the claim of the Claimant/ CounterRespondent and the counterclaim of the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant are rejected.
d. Costs
63. 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.
Page 12
REF 21-00193
64. 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.
65. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 13
REF 21-00193
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent, Dang Van Lam, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, SCG Muangthong United FC, is
rejected.
3. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a
party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a
redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 14