Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3067
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 January 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Tim
Vayrynen
COMPOSITION:
HENDEL Clifford J. (USA/France), Deputy Chairperson
BOEYKENS Stijn (Belgium), member
DOS SANTOS MEGALE Andre (Brazil), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Tim Vayrynen, Finland
Represented by Manleys Solicitors
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
KF Tirana, Albania
Represented by Alkiviadis Papantoniou Law Office
INTERVENING PARTY:
Kuopion Palloseura, Finland
Page 2
REF FPSD-3067
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On from 21 January 2021, the Finnish player Tim Vayrynen (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Albanian club KF Tirana (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant) signed an employment agreement valid as from the same
date until 30 June 2022 (hereinafter: the contract).
2.
Clauses 3 and 4 of the contract read as follows:
“Article 3 -Working hours and workplace
1. In order to fulfil his duties, the working hours of the player vary on the reasonable request
of the Club.
2. Are considered working places the training facilities and other estates of the Club. Despite
this, the Club demands from the Player, to perform and play wherever it is needed, in
accordance with participation program regarding official and unofficial activities.
3. The annual leaves of the Player shall be determined case by case, based on the Training
Program drafted from the First Coach / or the Technical Director.[...]
Article 4 (…) General Obligations of the Player
[...] 2. The player is obliged to participate in:
a) All the matches, activities and exercises of the Club (activities for all the players, as well as
the activities or training sessions provided in particular for the Player);
b) All the player’s meetings and other activities for the preparation of matches. This will also
apply in cases where his participation as line-up player or reserve was not anticipated.”
3.
According to clause 8 of the contract, the club undertook to play to the player the following
amounts:
a. Monthly salary of EUR 10,000 payable by the 10th day of every month;
b. EUR 18,000 as an advance payment to be paid within seven days of the receipt of the
International Transfer Certificate (ITC);
c. EUR 36,000 to be paid in advance on 1 July 2021;
d. Various bonus for performance;
e. Accommodation, namely a “centrally located apartment”.
4.
Pursuant to clause 8.2 of the contract, the club undertook to additionally pay an intermediary
commission of EUR 22,000 “to be paid by the club within seven days from the signature of
the employment contract between the club and the player“.
5.
Pursuant to clause 11 (4) of the contract: “the player is entitled to a buy-out clause of
€150,000 (Euro hundred fifty thousand) to be exercised in written within the 15th of august
2021.”
Page 3
REF FPSD-3067
6.
Pursuant to clause 12 of the contract:
“Article 12 -Termination of the contract by the Player
1. The Player can terminate the agreement with just cause with the Club noticing in writing
fifteen (15) days prior, in case the Club:
a) Is guilty of serious and persistent breaches of the terms and circumstances of this contract,
or b) Fails to pay any compensation under this contract, for more than 60 consecutive days
from the deadline when the obligation had to be executed.
2. If the Club fulfils its obligations within the notice period of 15 days pursuant to paragraph
1 above here in this article, the Player cannot terminate this contract unilaterally with just
cause.
3. If the Club executes its obligations, by notifying the Player for the maximum deadline for
the fulfilment of obligations, the Player cannot terminate the contract unilaterally with just
cause.”
7.
On 22 January 2021, the club wrote to the player’s representative, Mr Roberto De Fanti
(hereinafter: the player’s representative), and while thanking him for a previous email, it
recognised the “non fulfilment of payments as according to our legally binding contracts”.
The club furthermore acknowledged “our obligations and please do rest assured we are
working diligently towards settling the situation promptly”. Lastly, the club stated as follows:
“the issue is set to be taken care of within the beginning of May. We are certain that the few
first days of May will be the ones we settled the entire situation once and for all and we will
send you swift codes for the payments as soon as we complete the transactions”.
8.
On 8 April 2021, the player’s representative wrote to the club stating that himself and the
player had not yet received the amounts indicated in the contract, namely:
-
9.
“EUR 18,000 which were due to the player at the signature with [the club]”;
“EUR 22,000 which were due to myself as Commission fee within one week from
the signature of the contract”.
On several unspecified dates, the player and a club representative exchange text messages
regarding the players participation in training sessions and in U21 matches of the club, as
well as a document which the player had refused to sign.
10. On 20 May 2021, the club sent to the player’s representative a draft of a termination
agreement. The player never signed this document.
11. On 25 May 2021, the player was fined for EUR 3,000 by the club allegedly because (a) he
refused to play in an official match on 21 May 2021 between KF Apolonia and the club, and
(b) the player did not appear nor notified the club of his absence in the match on 24 May
2021 between the club’s U21 team and KF Kukesi’s U21 team.
Page 4
REF FPSD-3067
12. On 26 May 2021, the club informed the player that he would be training with the U21 team
until 30 June 2021. In the same correspondence the club acknowledged the player’s absence
in a training session that same day and that he would be fined.
13. On 27 May 2021, the club wrote to the player and accounted for his absence in a U21 match
of the team and therefore informed that he would be fined.
14. On the same date, as confirmed by both parties, the player left Albania.
15. On 28 May 2021, the club fined the player again in the amount of EUR 2,000 on account of
his absence in training sessions between 25 and 27 May 2021 as well as his absence in a
friendly match between the club’s U21 team and Albania’s U19 team.
16. On the same date, the player’s representative wrote to the club and inform it inter alia that
the club had missed five months of salaries. He also objected to the fine issued on him by the
club and requested the club to comply with its obligations to avoid that proceedings before
FIFA would start.
17. On 2 June 2021, the club wrote to the player and his representative as well as the Football
Association of Albania (FSHF). In its correspondence, the club informed the player of his
prolonged absence and alleged lack of communication as well as stated that it had informed
the immigration police in the city of Tirana that the player had left the country on 27 May
2021. The club also stated its “surprise“ and “shock“ that the player had fled the country
and urged him to return to the training ground within 3 days. The club recalled that failing
to appear in the training session was a serious breach of the contract.
18. On 3 June 2021, a joint letter by the player and his representative was sent to the club via
the latter’s lawyer. In such letter, the player and his representative pointed out that the club
had failed to honour the contract by missing payments of the following amounts:
(a) EUR 50,000 in the concept of salary;
(b) EUR 18,000 as sign-on fee; and
(c) EUR 22,000 as intermediary fee.
19. Additionally, the player referred to an abusive conduct by the club, and argued that a club
representative told him that in case he did not accept the termination of his contract he would
have problems with the police. The player furthermore stated that the threads made by the
club on him were akin to blackmail. Finally, the player terminated the contract with immediate
effect on the basis of its article 12 as well as article 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP). Accordingly, the player demanded payment of his outstanding
remuneration as well as compensation for breach of contract by 18 June 2021.
Page 5
REF FPSD-3067
20. On 17 June 2021, the club replied in writing and rejected the allegations by the player in his
previous letter. The club inter alia requested the player to return by 22 July 2021 and informed
that the outstanding payments would be made “very soon“.
21. On 22 June 2021, the player replied to the club’s letter and gave a final deadline of 7 days
for the club to make its payment under penalty of starting proceedings before the FIFA
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC).
22. The parties exchanged additional correspondence regarding a possible settlement, however
to no avail.
23. Following the termination of the contract, the player and the Finnish club, Club Kuopion
Palloseura (hereinafter: the intervening party) signed an employment contract with the
following conditions: (a) term between 1 August 2021 to 30 November 2022; and (b) monthly
salary of EUR 7,000.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
24. On 16 July 2021, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the player
25. In his claim, the player referred to the club’s behaviour and argued that on top of missing
payments for a prolonged period, the club forced him to terminate the contract by
threatening him and presenting documents for him to sign in a language he did not
understand, together with relegating him to the U21 team. The player stated that on the 8th
of May he was presented before a match with a termination document written in Albanian
which he refused to sign.
26. The player referred to the communications exchanged between the parties and argued that
he had just cause to terminate the contract on account of the fact that the club has
persistently and seriously breached the contract insofar it failed to pay him his salaries, signon fee, and intermediary fee. The player is of the position that he was entitled to terminate
the contract with just cause on the basis of article 14 of the FIFA RSTP.
27. The player seeks payment of the following amounts:
-
EUR 18,000 as overdue sign-on fee;
EUR 22,000 as overdue intermediary commission;
EUR 170,000 corresponding to “salaries in arrears and advance for the entirety of
the player’s contract” minus EUR 10,000 already paid;
GBP 5000 + VAT as legal fees;
Page 6
REF FPSD-3067
-
“Any such interest on the unpaid amounts as the FIFA dispute resolution chambers
considers appropriate”.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the club
28. The club filed a statement of defense and a counterclaim in two separate documents.
29. The club argued that it faced an “exceptional financial situation during the course of the
contract with the player. In particular, the bank accounts of the club were frozen”.
30. The club confirmed the fines and exchange of notices between the parties. It furthermore
argued that the player did not follow the procedure outlined in art. 12 of the contract. More
in particular, the club is of the opinion that the player did not have just cause to terminate
the contract, mainly because there was no notice sent by the player.
31. It followed from the above, in the club’s eyes, that the player did not meet the requirements
under art. 12 of the contract nor art. 14bis of the FIFA RSTP.
32. Subsequently, the club referred to art. 14, par.2 of the FIFA RSTP and argued that the player
could not establish that an abusive conducted had taken place. In particular, the club:
a. challenged the player’s own statement filed with his claim;
b. regarded that the offer of a mutual termination was a negotiated one and did not
amount to an abusive behaviour;
c. argued that moving the player to the U21 team was allowed under the FSHF
regulations and art. 3 and 4 of the contract. The club admits to have done it at least
four times;
d. refuted the alleged threats on the player by a club staff member, Mr Osmani;
e. outlined that the discipline subjected on the player are legal and proportionate.
33. In view of the foregoing, the clubs seeks payment of EUR 150,000 as compensation for
breach of contract on the basis of art. 11 par. 4 of the contract, namely the buy-out clause.
Alternatively, it asked for EUR 130,000 as the residual value of the contract.
34. As a subsidiary plea, the club submitted that the player’s position contributed to the
termination of the contract, and as such no compensation was to be awarded to any party,
especially in light of the player’s departure from Albania.
35. As another subsidiary plea, should the claim of the player be accepted, the club argued that
compensation due should be calculated as follows:
a. EUR 40,000 as late salaries, which the club accepts its liability. The club claims that
until 30 June 2021 the total amount of EUR 60,000 should have been paid, out of
which it paid EUR 10,000. However, the salary of June 2021 is not due since “the
contract was terminated”;
Page 7
REF FPSD-3067
b. EUR 18,000 as advance payment were already paid, as this amount is not in addition
to the salary;
c. EUR 22,000 are intermediary commission and thus FIFA is not competent to rule
upon these, also because the player’s representative is not a party to the
proceedings;
d. Legal fees cannot be awarded;
e. The fines should be factored in the calculation as, in the club’s opinion, the player
only contested part of them. Hence, the amount of EUR 5,000 or alternatively EUR
4,333 should be deducted from the compensation; and
f. Mitigation of the player’s new earnings at his new club. The club was of the position
that mitigation can only be considered if the new contract value amounted to at
least 33% of the player’s earnings.
c. Reply to counterclaim by the player
36. The player reiterated his position and confirmed the save for a payment of EUR 10,000 (sic),
he remained unpaid for the greater part of his contract and for more than 60 days. Thus, the
player deems he had just cause to terminate the contract.
d. Position of the intervening party
37. The intervening party filed a short reply, as follows (quoted verbatim):
“With great respect we answer to Your request as follows as an intervening party in the
present proceedings that has arrised from the termination of our current player, Mr. Tim
Väyrynen, represented by Manleys sol. Peri Mornington.
We agree to everything that has been written on behalf of Mr. Väyrynen. We do not have
any suspicions or scepticism, not to mention any thought of misinformation from our player’s
side given.
Our point of view has no doubts to believe that Mr. Kim Väyrynen would have “escaped”
from Tirana, if he had not all the necessary reasons to terminate his agreement with those
reasons given precise in his petition.
The career of professional football player abroad is very valued and targeted among the
players in Finland. We do not believe that any of finnish players would voluntarily risk their
career by terminating the contracts with vague reasons.
The fact is that the Player did not get his monies that was agreed in his employment contract
Page 8
REF FPSD-3067
and that he had all the reasons on grounds of the breaches of the contract to terminate the
contract, plus to demand all that is demanded in the Petion sent to DRC by solicitor, Peri
Mornington.
The burden of proof stands on side of the Club about the appropriate conduct of the
agreement.
As we agree the reasons for termination given by Mr. Vayrynen, we strongly opposite the
argumentation and allegations given in petition of Club KF Tirana and ask The Fifa Dispute
Resolution Chamber to reject them all.
However, we do not have any documentary evidence. We have only the correspondence with
Fifa in case conserned about the termination of Mr. Vayrynen’s agreement and license to play
in Kuopion Palloseura.
We refer to all material (evidence) given to DRC by and behalf on Mr. Vayrynen”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. 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 16 July 2021 and submitted for decision on
27 January 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 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.
39. 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. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Finnish
player and an Albanian club, with the involvement of a Finnish club.
40. At this point, the Chamber observed that the club challenged the admissibility of the player’s
claim regarding the intermediation fees sought, insofar as these are not employment-related.
41. The DRC concurred with the observation of the club and recalled that generally, FIFA is
competent to hear employment-related disputes between a club and a player with an
international dimension. The notion of employment-related dispute is reflected in the
jurisprudence of both the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and
Page 9
REF FPSD-3067
includes by all means a wider range of disputes than just simply those arising out of
employment agreements.
42. However, in the case at hand, the Chamber found decisive that the player’s representative,
in the notice of 8 April 2021 addressed to the club on the player’s behalf, expressly stated
that the club owed him and not the player EUR 22,000. The Chamber cited such wording for
the sake of completeness: “EUR 22,000 which were due to myself as Commission fee within
one week from the signature of the contract”.
43. In the Chamber’s view, this amount pertains to a relationship alien to the employment
relationship between the player and the club insofar as its beneficiary is a third party, as
denoted from the cited communication, and because it arises from a commercial transaction
entered into by such third party (the player’s representative) and the club.
44. It followed that this part of the player’s claim fell outside the scope or art. 22 of the
Regulations and thus was deemed inadmissible since FIFA lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.
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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 July 2021, the February 2021 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).
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.
Page 10
REF FPSD-3067
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 the parties strongly dispute whether the player had just cause
to terminate the contract, and the consequences that follow, bearing in mind the specific
circumstances of the case and the fines imposed by the club on the grounds of the player’s
absences.
49. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to make the following
determinations in order to solve the dispute:
a. Did the player have just cause to terminate the contract?
b. What are the consequences that follow?
50. These matters were examined in turn by the DRC.
Did the player have just cause to terminate the contract?
51. The parties strongly disputed if the player terminated the contract with or without just cause.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that the club did not dispute however to owe, at least,
the equivalent of 4 salaries to the player in the total amount of EUR 40,000.
52. The DRC highlighted that the player’s monthly salary amounted to EUR 10,000. It followed
therefore in the DRC’s view that the club essentially admitted having unpaid a substantial
amount to the player.
53. In continuation, the Chamber turned to the issue of the existence of a default notice in the
matter at hand to determine the issue of just cause. In doing so, the Chamber referred to the
Commentary on the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players Edition 2021
(p.122-124; hereinafter: the Commentary):
“Prior to the introduction of article 14bis, the DRC considered that two conditions must be
met for a player to have just cause to terminate their contract due to outstanding
remuneration: the outstanding amount cannot be negligible or totally subordinated, and, as
a general rule, the player must have put the club in default; that is, the club must have been
informed of its failure to abide by its contractual obligations, been made aware that the player
feels this behaviour is unacceptable, and been offered an opportunity to remedy the situation.
With respect to the default notice, the jurisprudence prior to the introduction of article 14bis
states that notification must have been issued for a player to have just cause. However, under
certain specific circumstances, the absence of a default notice has not been considered
sufficient grounds for preventing a player from invoking just cause when terminating their
contract. In other words, the duty to issue a reminder or a warning (default notice) is not
absolute. There are circumstances in which reminders and notifications are not strictly
Page 11
REF FPSD-3067
necessary, for instance where it is clear that the other side does not intend to comply with its
contractual obligations. Despite the handful of decisions suggesting notification is not
required, it is still strongly recommended that any player considering unilaterally terminating
their contract for reasons other than those set out in article 14bis should also issue such a
notice.
(…)
Article 14bis requires the player to notify the club in writing that it is in default, and to grant
the club a deadline of at least 15 days in which to comply fully with its financial obligations.
This condition is in line with the established jurisprudence of the DRC and of CAS, and aims
to improve clarity and legal security, particularly in relation to the specific termination date of
a contract.
Where both preconditions are met, the DRC has consistently concluded that the player had
just cause to terminate their contract prematurely based on article 14bis. Where the
preconditions are not met, article 14bis does not apply; in such circumstances the DRC may
nonetheless find that the termination was made with just cause within the scope of article
14, or consider that there was no just cause for the termination of the contract.
A frequent question posed to the DRC is if there is just cause where a player who has not
received two monthly salary payments due and only grants the club a deadline of, for
example, 10 days to comply fully with its financial obligations. Clearly, in such cases, the
formal requirements of article 14bis would not have been met. However, there is nothing to
stop the player justifying their unilateral termination of the contract based on the general
definition of just cause according to article 14 paragraph 1.
This route could prove more difficult to use than article 14bis, and it would be down to the
player to produce sufficient evidence to justify the termination of the contract, since the
regulatory presumption in article 14bis that the club is at fault unless proven otherwise would
not apply. Nevertheless, the player would still have the option of attempting to show that the
breach by the club (non-payment of two salary payments) was sufficiently serious to justify
the termination”.
54. The Chamber noted that on 8 April 2021 the club was reminded by the player’s representative
to pay the outstanding amount, but these did not include the player’s salaries. This seems to
be the only default notice on file, except for the termination notice dated 3 June 2021. At
the same time, the DRC could not overlook that the parties exchanged several
correspondences regarding the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the player and the issue of
his relegation to the lower team, i.e. the U21 team.
55. As such, the Chamber confirmed that the criteria under art. 14bis of the Regulations was not
met in the absence of the required default notice. Nonetheless, the Chamber found that in
any event the club substantially breached its main obligation to pay the player’s remuneration,
Page 12
REF FPSD-3067
while demonstrating that it was not genuinely interest in the player’s services by demoting
him from the first team. To this end, the Chamber could not concur with the argument of
the club that clauses 3 and 4 of the contract entitled the club to demote the player to the
lower team as these clauses have a generic and nonspecific wording.
56. Equally, the DRC was observant that the fines imposed on the player did not offer a possibility
for the player to contest them. Also, they did not follow any specific disciplinary proceeding
or due process. As such, the Chamber firmly set them aside.
57. The jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber supports the view that such persistent
and repetitive non-compliance with its contractual obligations and entitles the player to
terminate the contract. The jurisprudence of CAS is also reflective of the following (cf.
Commentary, p. 111):
“In a 2018 Award, the Panel stated that preventing a player from training with the first team
was potentially a much harsher punishment than making a player play matches for the
reserves while being allowed to train with the first team. The former would appear to imply
a clearer separation from the first team, which could prove seriously damaging to the player’s
prospects. Unilateral changes to a player’s employment status (unless they are made for
organisational reasons or because of the player’s own misbehaviour) are a valid reason for
the player to terminate the employment contract unilaterally, since they are considered a
serious infringement of the player’s personality rights”.
58. The Chamber ultimately considered on the basis of the foregoing considerations that by the
time of the termination of the contract on 3 June 2021, it could not be reasonably expected
from the player a continuation of the contractual relationship with the club. Therefore,
grounded on article 14 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the player had just cause to
terminate the contract.
What are the consequences that follow?
59. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
60. In doing so, the Chamber deemed that the player is entitled to his outstanding remuneration
and compensation for breach of contract. As stated, no fines are to be considered to offset
any amount since they were disregarded by the DRC.
61. At this point, the Chamber outlined that the sign-on fee or advance payment requested by
the player could not be granted insofar as the wording of the contract is rather dubious and
unclear. By interpreting this clause on the basis of the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal
and seeking the true intention of the parties, the Chamber found that this amount was to be
paid as part of the salary, meaning therefore that it was included in the latter. The DRC found
pivotal to its conclusion not only the amounts claimed in these proceedings by the player but
Page 13
REF FPSD-3067
also the communication sent by the player’s representative on 8 April 2021, in which he
requested his entire remuneration. Had this not been the case, the player would not ask the
entirety of his salaries in his default notice.
62. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 4 salaries under
the contract, amounting to EUR 40,000 i.e. the salaries from January to May 2021 (EUR
50,000 in total), minus the EUR 10,000 paid by the club and undisputed by the parties.
63. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were
outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 40,000.
64. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s unspecific request as well as the constant
practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the date of the claim until the date of
effective payment.
65. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
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. 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. For completeness, the DRC decided not to uphold the argumentation of the club
regarding the buyout clause, since it arises from the relevant wording this is not a
compensation clause and does not apply to the case at hand.
67. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said
provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
Page 14
REF FPSD-3067
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 from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded
that the amount of EUR 130,000 (i.e. the residual value of the contract) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
69. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
70. Indeed, the player found employment with the intervening party. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR 7,000 per
month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 77,000, that is, 11 times EUR 7,000.
71. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination took
place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that the
player shall receive additional compensation.
72. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD
EUR 30,000, i.e. 3 times the monthly remuneration of the player.
73. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 83,000
to the player (i.e. EUR 130,000 minus EUR 77,000 plus EUR 30,000), 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 the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim until the date of effective payment.
75. By way of conclusion, the DRC therefore confirmed that the player’s claim was partially
accepted (insofar as it was admissible) and the club’s counterclaim rejected in its entirety.
Page 15
REF FPSD-3067
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
76. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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.
77. 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.
78. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the club must pay the full amount
due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification of the
decision, failing which, at the request of the player, 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
79. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
80. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. 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.
Page 16
REF FPSD-3067
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Tim Vayrynen, is partially accepted insofar as
it is admissible.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, KF Tirana, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the
following amounts:
- EUR 40,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 July 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 83,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 16 July 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), 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/Counter-Claimant 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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17
REF FPSD-3067
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 18