DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13549
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 May 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Mariano Vazquez
BY:
Angela Collins (Australia), Single Judge
CLAIMANT:
Mariano Vazquez, Argentina
Represented by Costanza Soledad Benitez
RESPONDENT:
Al Faisaly, Saudi Arabia
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13549
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 5 January 2023, the Argentinian player Mariano Vazquez (hereinafter: the Claimant or
Player) and the Saudi club Al Faisaly (hereinafter: the Respondent or Club) concluded an
employment agreement valid from the said date until 4 July 2023 (hereinafter: the Contract).
2.
In accordance with the Contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia a monthly net remuneration of USD 31,666, due by the end of each month.
3.
By correspondence dated 28 December 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default
of payment of USD 67,632, granting a deadline of 10 days in order to remedy the default.
4.
On 30 January 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
5.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations
regarding the monthly salaries of May, June and July 2023.
6.
Accordingly, the amounts requested as relief by the Player were:
-
USD 31,666 as outstanding remuneration for May 2023;
USD 31,666 as outstanding remuneration for June 2023;
USD 4,200 as outstanding remuneration for July 2023;
5% interest per annum as from the respective due dates.
7.
In reply to the claim, the Club acknowledged the outstanding debt in relation to the salaries
of May 2023 and June 2023. However it argued that the amount claimed by the Player as
salary for July 2023 has been wrongly calculated by being pro-rated for 30 days rather than
the 31 days effectively composing the relevant month.
8.
Accordingly, the Club requested FIFA to recompute said amount because it was excessive
in proportion to the number of days.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
9.
First of all, the Single Judge of 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 30 January 2024
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13549
and submitted for decision on 2 May 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.
10. 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 (May 2023 edition), the Single Judge of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an
Argentinian player and a Saudi club.
11. 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 (February 2024 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 January 2024, the May 2023 edition
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
12. 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
13. 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
14. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties concluded an employment contract valid
from 5 January 2023 until 4 July 2023.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13549
15. In this context, the Single Judge observed that, while the Claimant seeks unpaid wages for
May, June, and July 2023, the Respondent acknowledges the existence of outstanding
amounts in favour of the Claimant under the Contract. Nonetheless, the Respondent
requests a reduction of the relevant sums. alleging an error in the Player's calculation.
16. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that her task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, which amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the
Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not having complied
with its financial obligations.
17. As a starting point, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent limited its requests for
relief to a reduction of the Player’ salary for July 2023 only.
18. Accordingly, the Single Judge assessed that the Club did not dispute the amounts claimed
by the Player with regard to the month of May 2023 and June 2023.
19. In continuation, the Single Judge took note of the amount claimed by the Claimant as salary
for July 2023 amounted to USD 4,300.
20. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that the sum claimed by the Player
apparently diverges from any pro-rated calculation on a monthly basis of either 30 days
[(i.e. USD 31,666/30= approx. USD 1,055.5) x 4 days= USD 4,222] or 31 days [(i.e. USD
31,666/31= approx. USD 1,021.5) x 4 days= USD 4,086].
21. The Single Judge therefore turned her attention to the wording of the Contract in order to
unravel the numerical tangle disputed between the parties.
22. However, the Single Judge ascertained that the Contract remains silent as to any criteria
that could be adopted for the calculation of the salaries on a pro-rata basis.
23. The Single Judge therefore concluded that he had to rely on the standard methods utilized
for pro-rated calculations in employment contracts at a global level, which would also be
consistent with the general principle – well recognized by FIFA and CAS – to adhere to the
relevant contractual terms with accuracy.
24. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that the exact number of days composing
the relevant month shall be taken into account in order to obtain a more precise and fair
computation.
25. Accordingly, the Single Judge proceeded with the calculation of the relevant salary due to
the Player for July 2023 prorated on the basis of the actual number of days composing said
month (i.e., 31) and determined that the amount payable by the Club would correspond to
approximately USD 4,086.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13549
26. The Single Judge therefore determined that the outstanding remuneration in favour of the
Player under the Contract amounts to a total of USD 67,418.
27. In this respect, the Single Judge wished to remark that in the case at hand the Respondent
bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract
concluded between the parties. Nonetheless, absent such evidence and any reasonable
justification by the Respondent for not having complied with the terms of the Contract, the
Single Judge decided that its financial liability could not be excluded.
28. 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 remained outstanding, i.e., USD 67,418.
29. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date
of effective payment.
30. Lastly, the Single Judge highlighted that the sums due by the Respondent to the Claimant
as established in the present decision shall be paid net of any tax, in accordance with the
express terms of the Contract.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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
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.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13549
34. 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.
35. 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
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13549
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Mariano Vazquez, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Al Faisaly, must pay to the Claimant USD 67,418 net as outstanding
remuneration plus interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 31,666 as from 1 June 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of USD 31,666 as from 1 July 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of 4,086 as from 1 August 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning shall be imposed on the Respondent.
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. 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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13549
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 9