Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-7704
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 March 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Rafael Feraiorni Verrone
BY:
DE WEGER Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI Dana (Qatar), member
VAN GAALEN Johan (South Africa), member
CLAIMANT:
Rafael Feraiorni Verrone, Italy and Brazil
Represented by Mr. Dev Kumar Parmar
RESPONDENT:
FC Krumovgrad, Bulgaria
Represented by Sila International Lawyers
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-7704
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Italian & Brazilian player Rafael Feraiorni Verrone (hereinafter:
the Player or the Claimant) and the Bulgarian club FC Krumovgrad (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from
the date of signature until 30 June 2024.
2.
In accordance with clause 3 of the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant
the following amounts:
•
•
•
From 01.01.2022 to 30.06.2022 a monthly net remuneration of EUR 2,000;
From 01.07.2022 to 30.06.2023 a monthly net remuneration of EUR 3,000;
If the Club started the 2023/2024 season in first professional football league of
the local championship, the salary of the Player would increase to EUR 4,000 net
per month from 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2024.
3.
In accordance with clause III of the contract: “Payment of the remuneration shall be made in
cash or by bank transfer, which has to be explicitly requested by the FOOTBALLER”.
4.
In accordance with clause X.2.2 of the contract, the Player was entitled to the following:
“X.2.1. The CLUB provides 2 AIR TICKETS (Bulgaria-Brazil-Bulgaria) for the FOOTBALLER for one
year”.
5.
In accordance with clause X.3. of the contract:
“Personal bonuses:
X.3.1. First Bonus when the player signs the contract in one-time payment of EUR 2,000 net.
X.3.2. Second bonus is from 01.07.2022 – one-time payment in the amount of 3000 euros
net”.
6.
In accordance with clause IX of the contract:
“IX TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT
IX.1. The contract between the club and the player is terminated in accordance with the
Labour Code. The parties under the contract agree that all disputes under the performance,
extension or termination of the present contract are under the jurisdiction of the BFU and
FIFA.
IX.2. Within seven days of termination of the contract by mutual consent expressed in writing,
club sports and presented in the technical department of communication and BFU original
act of termination. In this case, the player may immediately fall into the transfer list and go
to another football club in the transfer period, a club to use freed space establishment.
IX.3. With the termination of this contract is terminated the exercise of rights of the player
racing in favor of the club”.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-7704
7.
In accordance with clause XII of the contract:
“XII. FINAL PROVISIONS:
XII.1. Any alterations and supplements to the present contract shall only be made the explicit
consent in writing of the parties.
The additional protocols and other documents in writing prepared in reference to the
contract’s performance represent an integral part thereof. Additional agreements are
permissible if they do not aggravate the general terms of this contract and are for the
extension of the contract or a charge in the basic salary.
XII.2. For issues not covered by this contract, the provisions in of the Labour Code, regulation
of the BFU, FIFA, Sport Court in Lausanne and Bulgarian legislation.
XII.3 The disputes having occurred between the parties on occasion of the performance or
interpretation of the contract, shall be settled through negotiations, upon reach of agreement
in writing between them. If no agreement is reached the dispute shall be referred for
settlement to the Court Arbitration at BFU or FIFA.
XII.4. Each party under the contract shall be obliged to inform immediately the other party
for change in its address. Upon default on that obligation all papers sent- notifications,
communication, etc, to the party’s address specified in this contract shall be deemed duly
received”.
8.
According to a cash receipt, on 15 January 2022, the Club allegedly pay the Player the
amount of EUR 2,000. The cash receipt is allegedly signed by the Player with the following
description “PAYMENT UNDER CONTRACT (EUR 2,000 x BGN 1.95583)”. It is to be noted that
the Player disputed this payment.
9.
On an unspecified date, according to a cash receipt, the Club allegedly paid the January
2022 salary of BGN 3,912 to the Player. It is to be noted that the Player disputed the
payment made by the Club.
10. On an unspecified date, according to a cash receipt, the Club allegedly paid the February
2022 salary of BGN 3,912 to the Player. It is to be noted that the Player disputed this
payment.
11. According to a bank statement, on 21 April 2022, the March 2022 salary was paid to the
Claimant. The Player does not dispute this payment.
12. Between 30 May 2022 and 18 June 2022, various communications via the electronic
application WhatsApp took place between the Player, Leoxito Prince (another player) and
the administrative director of the Respondent, Tugay Osman (hereinafter: the Director). The
main topic of these conversations were:
-
A trip of the Player to Greece.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-7704
-
The Director informing the players about the trainings, in particular (1) the first
training of the season would take place on 13 June 2022 and (2) the program of the
week of trainings.
-
On 18 June 2022, the following discussions were established:
June 18, 2022, 8:24 - Director: Good morning Rafa
June 18, 2022, 8:26 - Player: I need your help
June 18, 2022, 8:27 - Player: I need be tomorrow 14:00 in airport
June 18, 2022, 8:27 - Player: Then we need transfer to Sofia today
June 18, 2022, 8:28 - Player: Is important because I have new team waiting me
June 18, 2022, 8:28 - Director: You with your wife?
June 18, 2022, 8:28 - Player: And Léo and Barbara
June 18, 2022, 8:28 - Director: 4 of you together.
June 18, 2022, 8:28 - Director: ?
June 18, 2022, 8:29 - Player: Yes
June 18, 2022, 8:29 - Player: For today afternoon
June 18, 2022, 8:29 - Director: Ok
June 18, 2022, 8:29 - Player: Thank you so much
June 18, 2022, 8:30 - Director: But you have to pay for the transport
June 18, 2022, 8:33 - Player: Ok
June 18, 2022, 8:34 - Player: After lunch is perfect for us
June 18, 2022, 8:34 - Director: I will check bro
June 18, 2022, 8:35 - Leo Prince: and I need to know when the assen will buy my ticket
June 18, 2022, 8:35 - Leo Prince: Because I need to buy for my wife
June 18, 2022, 8:37 - Director: I will ask him today
June 18, 2022, 8:37 - Leo Prince: Thanks
June 18, 2022, 8:37 - Director: Rafa your team is in Bulgaria?
June 18, 2022, 8:38 - Player: No Tugay
June 18, 2022, 8:38 - Player: Czech Republic
June 18, 2022, 8:40 - Director: Wow
June 18, 2022, 8:41 - Player: I’m happy bro
13. On 19 June 2022, the Player travelled to the Czech Republic. The parties disputed the
permission of the Player to go on this trip: according to the Claimant it was for an
authorized trial, and according to the Club it was to meet a new club which it had not
authorised.
14. On 20 June 2022, the following WhatsApp conversations between the Player and the
Director were held:
June 20, 2022, 19:10 - Player: Tugay
June 20, 2022, 19:10 - Player: I can play here, right
June 20, 2022, 19:10- Player: My contract with Krumovgrad is finished, right?
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-7704
June 20, 2022, 19:11 - Player: Help me with this please [emoticons added]
June 20, 2022, 19:11 - Director: Yes bro
June 20, 2022, 19:11 - Director: There are not any problems.
15. By correspondence dated 7 July 2022, the Claimant requested the Respondent, inter alia,
the following:
(1) The Club shall continue fulfilling the agreement until the termination of the contract.
(2) The payment of EUR 2,000 for June salary and EUR 3,000 for the bonus set in clause
X.3.2 of the contract; setting 72 hours’ time limit in order to remedy the default.
(3) To train and participate in the activities of the team in equal conditions with the rest
of the members of players refraining from any kind of discrimination.
16. By correspondence on 23 August 2022, the Claimant requested the Respondent the
following:
(1) The Club shall continue fulfilling the agreement until the termination of the contract.
(2) The payment of EUR 2,000 for June salary, EUR 3,000 for July salary and EUR 3,000 for
the bonus set in clause X.3.2 of the contract; setting 72 hours’ time limit in order to
remedy the default.
(3) To train and participate in the activities of the team in equal conditions of the rest of
the members of players, with the club refraining from any kind of discrimination; and
(4) The correspondence further stated that “if [the Player] do not receive answer to this
mail within the next 72 hours, it would be considered that the Club unilaterally terminated
the agreement between the parties...”
17. By correspondence dated 12 September 2022, the Claimant put the Respondent in default
for the payment of the Salaries of January 2022, February 2022, March 2022, June 2022,
July 2022, and August 2022 in the amount of EUR 14,000 net and the payment of the
bonuses as per article X.3.2. of the contract in the amount of EUR 5.000 net. Contextually,
the Claimant set a 48 hours’ time limit in order for the Respondent to remedy the default.
The Claimant further indicated that “despite his numerous attempts to contact the Club's
administration, the latter failed to send him the tickets to attend the preseason camp and even
respond to the Player”.
18. On 14 September 2022, the Claimant sent a termination notice to the Respondent as the
salaries allegedly remained unpaid and the Player did not receive a flight ticket to
reintegrate the team.
19. On 26 October 2022, according to the letter provided by the bank DSK Bank AD, it certified
regarding the bank account of the Claimant that:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-7704
-
-
-
“On April 21, 2022, a mass payment was recorded for the month of March, and the
accounts of 26 customers were verified, and the payment to the respective customer was
in the amount of BGN 3,912.00;
On June 8, 2022, a mass payment was recorded for the month of April, and the accounts
of 22 customers were certified, and the payment to the respective customers was in the
amount of BGN 3,912.00;
On June 8, 2022, a mass payment was recorded for the month of May, and the accounts
of 28 clients were certified, and the payment to the respective client was in the amount of
BGN 3,912.00.”
20. As per information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 5 October 2022,
the Player was transferred to the Italian club Massa Lubrense as amateur player.
21. As per TMS, on 10 January 2023, the Player and the Brazilian club Associacao Esportiva E
Recreativa Auritânia signed a contract valid as from the date of signature until 15 April 2023
with a monthly salary of BRL 2,000.
22. As per TMS, on 2 August 2022, the Club changed its name from “Levski 2005” to “FC
Krumovgrad”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
23. On 30 September 2022, 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
24. The Claimant filed a claim for overdue payables and compensation for breach of contract,
and argued that he terminated the contract with just cause and as a measure of ultima
ratio, for the following reasons:
-
-
In June 2022, the Player refused to reduce his salary and the Club immediately obliged
him to terminate contract.
The club was already in breach of the financial obligations, the club did not pay several
months’ salary and bonus.
the Player had to purchase airplane tickets to travel to his country after the season's
end.
3 notices were sent to the Club before the termination, however, to not avail.
The Claimant complied with the 15-day condition established in art. 14 bis of Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and the contract was terminated on 12
September 2022.
The Player was “pushed out” of the team.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-7704
25. The Player requested the following relief:
1. “The Claim of the Claimant, Mr. Rafael Ferraiorni Verrone, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, FC Krumovgrad, Bulgaria, is obliged to pay the following
amounts:
-
-
-
EUR 14.000 (Fourteen thousand Euro) net of taxes and social security
payments in a concept of outstanding salaries for January, February, March,
June, July, and August 2022.
EUR 5.000 (Five thousand Euro) net of taxes and social security payments in a
concept of bonuses provided by article X.3 of the employment contract (signon fee payable on 01.01.2022 and additional bonus payable on 01.07.2022);
EUR 66.000 (Sixty-six thousand euros) as compensation for breach of the
contract and termination invoking just cause based on art. 17.1. of FIFA RSTP;
EUR 9.000 (Nine thousand Euro) net of taxes and social security payments in
the concept of "additional compensation" due to the termination based on
outstanding salaries.
3. The Respondent, FC Krumovgrad, is obliged to provide the certificates of tax
retentions applied to the payments of the salary arrears of the Player and the
certification of social tax contributions applied in Bulgaria.
4. The interest at 5% p.a. is applied on any outstanding payment from the date of the
due payment until the effective date of payment on any amount, being salaries,
bonuses, or compensation for breach of the employment contract, as the penalty
for the delay of payment and per the long-standing jurisprudence of FIFA DRC:
-
5% p.a. applies on EUR 2.000 (January salary) from 01.02.2022 until the
effective date of payment;
5% p.a. applies on EUR 2.000 (February salary) from 01.03.2022 until the
effective date of payment;
5% p.a. applies on EUR 2.000 (March salary) from 01.04.2022 until the effective
date of payment;
5% p.a. applies on EUR 2.000 (June salary) from 01.07.2022 until the effective
date of payment;
5% p.a. applies on EUR 3.000 (July salary) from 01.08.2022 until the effective
date of payment;
5% p.a. applies on EUR 3.000 (August salary) from 01.09.2022 until the effective
date of payment;
5% p.a. applies on EUR 2.000 (sign-on bonus) from 02.01.2022 until the
effective date of payment;
5% p.a. applies on EUR 3.000 (July 2022 bonus) from 02.07.2022 until the
effective date of payment;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-7704
-
5.
5% p.a. applies on EUR 75.000 (compensation for breach of the contract) from
15.09.2022 until the effective date of payment.
The sporting sanctions in the form of a transfer ban for two complete and
consecutive transfer periods are imposed on the Club as per article 17.4. of the
FIFA RSTP as the breach occurred during the protected period.”
b. Position of the Respondent
Lack of jurisdiction
26. The Respondent indicated that clauses IX.1 and XII.2 the contract contain a clear jurisdiction
clause in favour of the arbitration court of the Bulgarian Football Union (hereinafter:
ACBFU).
27. The Respondent further indicated that the ACBFU fulfils the conditions established in art.
22.1 of the RSTP and the FIFA Circular N° 1010. On this note, the Respondent clarified that
“FIFA NDRC” does not apply to the case, as the ACBFU qualifies as a “true arbitration tribunal
under Bulgarian law and its decisions are subject to control by the Supreme Cassation Court”.
28. Therefore, the claim according to the Respondent is inadmissible.
Termination of the contract:
29. The Respondent considered that the Claimant unilaterally terminated the Contract
“through his implicit conduct on June 18, 2022, repudiating the contract”, in line with the
statement by the Claimant on the WhatsApp communication dated 18 June 2022. The
Respondent further indicated that in accordance with the WhatsApp conversations on 20
June 2022, the Player’s behavior “induced legitimate expectations in the Respondent that the
Claimant wished to part ways with the Respondent to join a new club in the Czech Republic”.
30. Accordingly, the Respondent submitted that the Claimant unilaterally terminated the
contract on 18 June 2022, by leaving the Respondent to join an unspecified club in Czech
Republic and “repudiating” the Contract. The Claimant's termination was without
justification in the opinion of the Respondent.
31. As to the information of the pre-season, the Respondent stated that the Claimant was
aware of those informations as per the WhatsApp communications.
32. As to the flight tickets, the Respondent stated that it is not in the obligation to provide it as
the Player was in Czech Republic and the flight must be from Brazil to Bulgaria.
Outstanding salaries:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-7704
33. As to the salaries from January to March, the Respondent indicated that the salaries were
paid and provided evidence on this matter, amounting to the cash receipts described in
the relevant section above.
34. The Respondent further argued that the Player is not entitled to any salary as from 18 June
2022, considering that the contract was terminated.
Compensation
35. The Respondent indicated that the Claimant should not be awarded any compensation for
breach of contract, as “he was not interested in the performance of the Contract after 16 June
2022”.
36. The Respondent requested the following relief:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
“Establish that it does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae over the dispute and
render the Claimant's Claim inadmissible thereof; or, alternatively
Reject the Claimant's Claim in its entirety insofar as it is admissible.
Establish that the Claimant is not entitled to outstanding salaries and sign-on fee
up to and including May 31 and after June 16,2022.
Establish that the Claimant is not entitled to compensation for damages Sanction
Daniel Cerejido Arias for inducing the Claimant to breach the Contract, pursuant
to Article L7.5 RSTP.
Submit the case of Daniel Cerejido Arias's involvement for both sides (conflict of
interests) for further investigation and sanctions by the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee.“
c. Additional comments of the Claimant
37. With regards to the payment of January and February and signing fees, the Claimant
indicated:
“the payments of the salary and the signing fee as it is stated in the contract and latter it
is supported not only by the claimant also with the Respondent, were made by bank
transfer. The Claimant does not recognise these documents, and affirms that such a salary
and signing fee was not received in any case. There is a clear discrepancy on the manner
of payment and a firm dispute on the evidence presented by the Respondent. The mere
presentation of such purported receipts is in itself, as the Panel will no doubt be aware,
not enough for a burden to be sufficiently discharged.”
38. With regards to March salary, the Claimant accepted the assertion of the Respondent.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-7704
39. With regards to the termination of the contract in June 2022 as stated by the Club, the
Claimant considered that the contract was not terminated at that time as no warning,
written notice or assertion was established by the Respondent and that “the assertions
made by the Claimant should not be considered as a formal termination of the contract as well
as it has not been considered such the assertions made by the Director”.
40. Additionally, the Claimant indicated that the obligations derived from the contract have not
been fulfilled from the Respondent’s side by not paying the salaries related to June, July
and August 2022.
41. With regards to the jurisdiction, the Claimant stated that clause XII.2 of the contract is not
exclusive, and FIFA has jurisdiction.
42. The request for relief remained unchanged.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
43. The Respondent reiterated its position as to the lack of jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal.
44. With regards to the payments and the argumentation that the Claimant allegedly had not
signed such documents, the Respondent stated inter alia that:
- The Claimant used his initials in documents such as the power of attorney, default notice
and bank account registration.
- At the time of the signature of receipts, the Club was not aware of the abbreviation of
the signature.
- The differences between the signatures are that one is handwritten and the other
electronically generated.
- Requested a forensic examination of the documents.
- In the 1st default notice on 6 July 2022, the Claimant did not claim the sign on fee, January
and February salaries, which shows an inconsistency.
- The first three payments to the Claimant were made in cash per clause III.3 of the
contract before the Player set up a bank account in Bulgaria.
45. With regards to the termination, the Respondent stated that no authorisation was granted
for the Player to travel and that the Claimant sought confirmation from the Director that
the contract was finished. Moreover, the Respondent stated that from 8 June to July 14 the
Respondent was away from the workplace, and submitted that by his conclusive conduct,
the Claimant induced legitimate expectations in the Respondent that he terminated the
Contract on 18June 2022.
46. The request for relief remained unchanged.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-7704
e. Original document provided by the club
47. In light of the player’s allegations of forgery concerning the payment receipts filed by the
Club, the latter provided the original copies of those documents via courier.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
48. 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 30 September 2022 and
submitted for decision on 30 March 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the
October 2022 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.
49. 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
RSTP (October 2022 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 player from Italy/Brazil and a club from Bulgaria.
50. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies in favour of the ACBFU, alleging that the latter is competent to deal with
any dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract, in accordance with its clauses
IX.1 and XII.2.
51. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to adjudicate
the present claim, sustaining that the contract does not contain a clear and exclusive
jurisdiction clause in favour of the ACBFU.
52. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasized that in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the RSTP, FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear an employment-related
dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension. Nevertheless, the
parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided by an independent
arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be
included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable
on the parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair
proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally,
the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution
Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-7704
53. In this context, Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the contract
contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the ACBFU.
54. In this respect, the Chamber referred to clause XII.3 of the contract, according to which: ”
(…) if no agreement is reached the dispute shall be referred for settlement to the Court of
Arbitration at BFU or FIFA” (emphasis added).
55. The Chamber, after analysing the wording of the jurisdiction clause, concluded that such
clause did not clearly and exclusively establish the competence of the ACBFU, in
accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the RSTP.
56. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite for
establishing the competence of an NDRC was not met, and therefore, without the need to
enter the analysis of any further requirement, it established that the Respondent’s
objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and
that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of
the RSTP, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
57. Finally, 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 RSTP (October 2022 edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 30
September 2022, the July 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
58. 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
59. 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.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-7704
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
60. 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 the non-payment of
salaries and bonus and the termination of the contract.
61. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine (1) whether
the Contract was terminated with or without just cause and (2) whether the Club has
fulfilled with all its financial obligations.
Termination of the contract:
62. The Chamber observed that the termination of the contract is contested by the two parties.
The Claimant stated that he terminated the contract with just cause on 14 September 2022,
as the club did not pay the Player’s salaries for two months and the Club did not reply to
any of the default notices sent on 7 July 2022 and 22 August 2022. On the contrary, the
Club stated that the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract on 18 June 2022 by
leaving the club.
63. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent submitted evidence -which is not
challenged by the Claimant- such as WhatsApp communications between the Player and
the Director.
64. In particular, the Chamber referred to a WhatsApp communication on 18 June 2022, where
the Player mentioned that he needed to go to the airport on 19 June 2022 considering that
a new team was waiting for him. The WhatsApp communication stated as follows:
“… June 18, 2022, 8:26 - Player: I need your help
June 18, 2022, 8:27 - Player: I need be tomorrow 14:00 in airport
June 18, 2022, 8:27 - Player: Then we need transfer to Sofia today
June 18, 2022, 8:28 - Player: Is important because I have new team waiting me …”
65. Additionally, the Chamber noted that on 20 June 2022, the Player and the Club held the
following communications:
“June 20, 2022, 19:10 - Player: Tugay
June 20, 2022, 19:10 - Player: I can play here, right
June 20, 2022, 19:10- Player: My contract with Krumovgrad is finished, right?
June 20, 2022, 19:11 - Player: Help me with this please [emoticons added]
June 20, 2022, 19:11 - Director: Yes bro
June 20, 2022, 19:11 - Director: There are not any problems”.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-7704
66. In view of the foregoing the Chamber considered that despite the fact of not having an
official letter in setting a termination agreement or a similar document, following the trip
of the Player from the Club’s premises to another country (either for trial purposes or to
meet the new club), both parties recognized that the contract was terminated in
accordance to the communications dated 18 June 2022 and 20 June 2022.
67. In doing so, the Chamber considered that the intention of both parties was to not pursue
with the contract anymore, as it transpires from the contents of the cited communication.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that both parties’ lost interest in continuing with the
contract and that the same was terminated de facto by both parties on 20 June 2022, on a
mutual basis.
68. As such, the Chamber remarked that since both parties departed from the contract, no
breach took place. Consequently, the DRC confirmed that no compensation shall be
awarded.
Outstanding remuneration:
69. Having found the above, the Chamber proceeded with the analysis of the amounts deemed
as outstanding by the Claimant. In doing so, the DRC observed that the Player requested
payment of the salaries for January (EUR 2,000 net), March (EUR 2,000 net), June (EUR 2,000
net), July (EUR 4,000 net) and August 2022 (EUR 4,000 net) and the bonuses due at the
signature of the contract (EUR 2,000 net) and on 1 July 2022 (EUR 3,000 net).
70. The Chamber also observed that the Respondent stated that it fulfilled with all its financial
obligations and provided as evidence cash receipts -which are contested by the Player and a bank statement.
71. The Chamber was also mindful that (1) the Player does not recognise the payments and
the documentation presented by the Respondent; (2) the contract stipulated in clause III.3
that the salary can be paid by cash or transfer bank; and (3) in the first 2 default notices,
the Claimant did not request said amounts.
72. Bearing the player’s position on the forgery in mind, the DRC observed that his signatures
in the documents on file were inter alia as follows:
Document
Signature used in contract
Signature
Signature used in PoA, Bank statement
and default notice
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-7704
Signature used for bonus
Signature used for January salary –
copy on file
Signature used for January salary –
sent by e-courier
Signature used for February salary –
copy on file
73. Additionally, the DRC observed that the copy of the January receipt provided digitally, and
the original receipt sent by courier.
Copy on file
Copy sent via courier
74. In view of the dissent between the parties, the DRC firstly recalled that in line with its longstanding jurisprudence, the club bore the burden of proof to demonstrate that it complied
with its financial obligations (cf. art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules). Furthermore, the
Chamber also deemed noteworthy that clubs must be diligent when paying players in cash,
and to record the correspondent cash payment receipt. In the absence of a clear
confirmation that the signature found in the specimen in the receipt is authentic, it falls on
the club to further prove its position – for instance by filing additional documentation, such
as balances or internal accounting documents, to demonstrate that the payments were
performed.
75. The DRC stressed that the above is particularly important when considering that FIFA’s
deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the one
of alleged falsified signatures of documents, and that such affairs fall into jurisdiction of
the competent national criminal authority. Thus, it is up to the relevant chamber of the
Football Tribunal to take a decision vis-à- vis the other elements of the case. As such, the
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-7704
DRC dismissed the request of the Respondent of forensic examination of the relevant
documentation, as it deemed itself sufficiently informed on the basis of the evidence on
file, as detailed in continuation.
76. On this note and having carefully analysed the documentation on file, the DRC initially
considered that, under a technical point of view, the player seemed to have used different
signatures at different times. The Chamber also noted that the Club presented part of the
evidence that does not meet in full (January salary) the digital copy incorporated to the case
file, which led the Chamber to believe that the documents were modified and therefore,
lack credibility. Therefore, the Chamber established that the 3 cash payment receipts could
not be taken into account in the context of the present dispute, for they failed to meet the
required degree of satisfaction of the Chamber.
77. In view of the foregoing and in line with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Player should be entitled to the bonus due at the signature
of the contract, plus his January and February 2022 salaries.
78. As to June salary and taking into consideration that the contract ended on 20 June 2022,
the Chamber concluded that the Player is entitled to his salary from 1 June 2022 to 20 June
2022. Therefore, and in line with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the player should be entitled to EUR 1,333.33 net.
79. Furthermore, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the DRC decided to award the player interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as from the due dates until the date of effective
payment.
80. As to March salary, the Chamber noted that the Claimant did not challenge the payment of
said payment, therefore, the Chamber concluded not to award that amount.
81. Finally, and for sake of clarity, the Chamber pointed that the contract terminated on 20
June 2022, and consequently the amounts claimed by the Claimant after this date are
rejected (i.e., from 21 to 30 June 2022, July 2022, August 2022 and the bonus due on 1 July
2022.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
82. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
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.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-7704
83. 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.
84. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
85. 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.
86. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-7704
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Rafael Feraiorni
Verrone.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, FC Krumovgrad, must pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 2,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 January 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 2,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 2,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2022
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,333.33 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2022
until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant 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. 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 cost.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-7704
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. 20