Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2367
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 14 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Yoni Javier
Angulo Viveros
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER, Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
VERMEER, Roy (The Netherlands), member
ANDRADE, Jose Luis (Portugal), member
CLAIMANT:
Yoni Javier Angulo Viveros, Colombia
Represented by Gher Sport
RESPONDENT:
Carabobo FC, Venezuela
Represented by Melanie Schärer
Page 2
REF FPSD-2367
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 13 January 2020, the Colombian player Yoni Javier Angulo Viveros (hereinafter: the
Claimant or the player) and the Venezuelan club Carabobo FC (hereinafter: the Respondent
or the club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract), valid from the day of
the signature until 10 December 2020.
2.
According to the art. 3 of the Contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of USD
3,500, payable on the 20th day of each month.
3.
According to the art. 3.3 of the Contract, the Claimant was entitled to a sign-on fee of USD
4,500.
4.
According to art. 14.2 of the Contract, the Respondent undertook to provide the Claimant
with accommodation “in the city of Valencia or neighbouring towns”.
5.
On 12 March 2020, the Venezuelan Football Federation (“FVF”) suspended all football
activities in the country due to COVID-19 until the "permanent emergency" ceases or the
resumption of activities would be authorised by the FVF.
6.
On 13 March 2020, the Presidential Decree No. 4160 was published in the presidential chain
of command, Extraordinary Official Gazette No. 6.519, whereby a state of emergency and
alarm was ordered throughout the national territory of Venezuela.
7.
On 14 May 2020, the FVF decided to definitively suspend the professional football
tournaments for the 2020 season.
8.
On 24 June 2020, the Claimant sent a proposal to the Respondent in which he made an offer
to negotiate his economic conditions in light of the suspension of football-related activities in
Venezuela.
9.
On 1 July 2020, the Respondent sent the Claimant an economic proposal dated 27 June
2020.
10. On the same date, the Claimant re-sent the previously sent proposal.
11. On 20 July 2020, the Respondent informed the Claimant that the employment relationship
had been suspended since 15 March 2020 due to the existing force majeure situation.
12. On 7 August 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for the total amount of USD
15,750 granting 10 days to comply, to no avail.
13. On 14 September 2020, the Claimant sent a termination notice to the Respondent.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2367
14. On the same date, the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the termination notice.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. On 23 April 2021, 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
16. According to the Claimant, on 26 June 2020, he sent a proposal to the club in order to amend
his contractual entitlements due to Covid-19.
17. The Claimant submits that the Club had not complied with the payment of his
accommodation expenses. In this regard, the Claimant states that from 11 March 2020 to 14
April 2020 had to pay the amount of USD 490 for this concept.
18. The Claimant further states that he presented a new proposal to the Respondent, which was
never answered.
19. The Claimant submits that on 20 July 2020, the Respondent informed him of the suspension
of the Contract since 16 March 2020, arguing that he had expressly and repeatedly rejected
the offers of the Respondent and that in addition the Claimant intended the payment of the
contractually agreed salary. The Claimant states that such a statement from the Respondent
is totally false.
20. According to the Claimant, the President of the Venezuelan Players' Union sent on his behalf
a default notice to the Respondent on 11 August 2020, granting 15 days to comply with his
economic obligations corresponding to the wages accrued from 15 March 2020 to the month
of July 2020, for a total value of USD 15,750
21. According to the Claimant, he is entitled to receive:
a. the total value of wages due from 15 March 2020 to 14 September 2020, equivalent to
USD 21,000, plus interest from the date on which the payments due at the legal rate of
5% per annum permitted under Swiss law;
b. the value corresponding to 50% of the signing on fee agreed in the third clause of the
Contract, equivalent to USD 2,250, plus the interest caused from the moment of nonpayment, at the legal rate of 5% per year allowed under Swiss law;
c. the payment of the lodging that the Respondent had undertaken to pay according to the
employment contract, for the 35 days that the Player had to assume said payment
equivalent to the sum of USD 490, plus the interest of 5% per year;
Page 4
REF FPSD-2367
d. the payment of compensation for the breach of the Contract by the Respondent, equivalent
to the remaining value of the Contract from 15 September 2020 to 10 December 2020,
amount corresponding to USD 9,917.
22. The Claimant argues that he was open to negotiation regarding his salaries.
23. The Claimant further submits that the Respondent has deprived him of his right to be fairly
remunerated for his work, a right recognized not only by FIFA but universally through Article
23.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
24. The Claimant’s requests for relief were the following:
1. “Order the Respondent, the immediate payment of the values owed by way of monthly
salaries to the Claimant from the month of March 2020 to the month of September of
the same year, amount equivalent to USD 21,000, plus the interest caused from the
moment of each non-payment, that is, from the date on which the payments due by the
Defendant were originally due, at the legal rate of 5% per year allowed under Swiss law.
2. Order the Respondent, the immediate payment to the Claimant of the value owed as a
signing bonus established in the third clause third paragraph of the Contract, sum
equivalent to USD 2,250, plus the interest caused from the moment of non-payment, that
is, from January 13, 2020, the date on which the payment was originally due, at the legal
rate of 5% per year allowed under Swiss law.
3. Order the Respondent to immediately pay the securities that the Player had to assume for
35 days of lodging, which were borne by the Defendant, for a value of USD 490, plus the
interest caused from the moment of non-payment, that is, from March 11, 2020, at the
legal rate of 5% per year allowed under Swiss law.
4. Order the Respondent to immediately pay the wages corresponding to the remaining time
of the Employment Contract, amount equivalent to USD 9,917.
5. Order the Respondent to immediately pay the additional compensation of article 17.ii of
the RETJ in the amount of USD 9,917, given the conduct of bad faith during the execution
of the Employment Contract.
6. Impose the sporting sanction established in article 12bis literal d of the FIFA RETJ,
prohibiting the Respondent from registering new players both nationally and
internationally, for two (2) registration periods.
7. Order the Respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings arising from that proceeding,
in so far as they are fixed by FIFA through its sports and judicial bodies.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2367
8. Admit the facts and the petitions of this claim since they are based on the RETJ and the
FIFA system and was presented within the terms established by the procedures issued by
the same international organization”.
b. Position of the Respondent
25. According to the Respondent, on 14 April 2020, “the player left the country without
permission from the club. There is no other explanation for the fact that the player, according
to his own statements, did not incur any expenses for accommodation in Venezuela after this
date. At least the player does not claim any expenses in this regard in his claim, which is why
his secret departure must be considered proven”.
26. The Respondent further states that it informed the Claimant that due to their extremely
difficult economic situation, it could no longer pay him a salary from the suspension of the
championship due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government-ordered
lockdown in March 2020, but that it would provide him with a support amount of USD 350
per month from 1 April 2020 as well as cover the costs of accommodation from the
resumption of football activities until the end of these activities. From the resumption of preseason football activities until 30 November 2020, the club guaranteed the player a salary of
USD 2,100
27. The Respondent argues that “contrary to the player’s allegation this proposal by the club
remained unanswered. At the very least, it cannot be established on the basis of the
documents submitted by the player that the alleged counter-proposal of 1 July 2020 was
actually delivered to the club”.
28. The Respondent further argues that no proof of delivery of the letter to the Respondent was
submitted, “although the player bears the burden of proof for this alleged fact”.
29. According to the Respondent, “the vast majority of the player's teammates agreed with the
club's proposal to adjust the contractual and sanitary conditions, the Claimant refused to do
so”.
30. The Respondent states that the Claimant “had not reported to the club for quite some time,
he did also not respond to the invitation to return to resume work sent via email and social
media in September 2020”.
31. Moreover, the Respondent “vehemently denies” having received the default notice dated 11
August 2021 from the Claimant.
32. In the Respondent’s view, the letter from the President of the Venezuelan Players' Union
(“AUFPV”) dated 7 August 2020, which according to the claim was delivered to the
Respondent on 11 August 2020, has not been signed and contains no power of attorney.
Thus, the Respondent submits that the Claimant did not legally put the Respondent in default.
Page 6
REF FPSD-2367
Furthermore, the Claimant had submitted any evidence to prove that the letter in question
was actually sent to the club.
33. The same arguments are brought by the Respondent regarding the termination notice
allegedly sent by the Claimant on 14 September 2020
34. The Respondent further argues that “even if the player's contract termination were to be
taken into account despite the lack of proof of its actual delivery to the club, which we dispute
due to the burden of proof on the player, it is concluded that it was without just cause” as
the measures dictated by the Venezuelan Government emerge as an event of force majeure.
35. The Respondent submits that “according to Swiss law, jurisdiction and doctrine, which
complement FIFA law, the adaptation of a contract to the new circumstances is subject to the
clausula rebus sic stantibus, which is not contained in Swiss law, so that the issue is also dealt
with under terms such as force majeure”.
36. The Respondent further argues that according to art. 91 of the Swiss Code of Obligations
(“SCO”), the employer, as the creditor of the work performance, is in default if he does not
accept the work performance that the employee offered or could reasonably have been
expected to offer, without justification. Moreover, the restrictions on operations directly
imposed by the Government should be qualified as objective reasons within the meaning of
art. 91 SCO.
37. The Respondent states that as the conditions of art. 324 SCO are not met and salaries should
not be paid. The Respondent was not obliged to continue paying the Claimant’s salaries from
15 March 2020 until the termination of the contract.
38. The Respondent defends that applying Swiss law, the conditions for the application of the
judicial contract adjustment are fulfilled, and therefore they must be placed above the pacta
sunt servanda principle.
39. Based on the previous considerations, the Respondent submits that as no obligation existed
on the Respondent to continue paying the Claimant’s salary after the suspension of the
football activities by the Venezuelan government, the Claimant should not be deemed to
have just cause for the termination of the contract.
40. The Respondent states that as per the previous arguments, at the time of the termination of
the contract, two months' salary were not outstanding and the Claimant had not sent a
legally effective default notice.
41. In the Respondent’s view, the Claimant’s termination “was not an ultima ratio measure as
required by DRC jurisprudence”.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2367
42. Lastly, the Respondent stated that as the Claimant terminated the contract without just cause,
the Respondent would be entitled to compensation according to art. 17 par. 2 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which corresponds to the remaining value
of the contract after its termination by the player. Hence, “as the player would have to pay
compensation to the club for breach of contract according to article 17 of the Regulations
and not vice versa, the player’s claim for compensation is unfounded”.
43. The Respondent’s request for relief is:
“The DRC shall reject the player’s claim in its entirety”.
c. Final comments from the Claimant
44. Based on the Respondent allegations, FIFA general secretariat requested the Claimant to
provide evidence (if any) of having sent the aforementioned notices.
45. The Claimant provided the email correspondence which contained the letters and notices sent
to the Respondent.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
46. 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 23 April 2021 and submitted for decision
on 14 October 2021. 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.
47. 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 competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Colombian player
and a Venezuelan club.
48. 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 23 April 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
Page 8
REF FPSD-2367
b. Burden of proof
49. 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
50. 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
51. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that it remained undisputed that the Respondent unilaterally
reduced the salary of the Claimant and that the Claimant terminated the Contract on 14
September 2020. Furthermore, it noted that despite some of the Respondent’s arguments,
no counterclaim was filed against the Claimant.
52. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to rule on the validity of the
salary reduction carried out by the Respondent and likewise on as to whether the contractual
termination by the Claimant was made with or without just cause.
53. Turning to the issue of the salary reduction, the Chamber firstly wished to recall that FIFA
issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate
guidance and recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to both
mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response
is harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA issued an additional
document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on the most
relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak
and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
54. The DRC also wished to refer to the fact that said guidelines – as per the explicit wording of
FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines – are only applicable
to “unilateral variations to existing employment agreements”. Therefore, except where a
termination of a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as a result of COVID19 (in which case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the guidelines),
Page 9
REF FPSD-2367
said guidelines do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing employment
agreements. The Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes that are
presented before the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of a contract,
the FIFA Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber shall apply.
55. In other words, in any given dispute, it is for a party invoking force majeure to establish the
existence of said event under the applicable law/rules as well as the consequences that derive
in connection thereto. The analysis of whether a situation of force majeure existed has to be
considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. What
is more, in application of said FIFA COVID 19 Guidelines, unilateral decisions to vary
agreements will only be recognised where they are made in accordance with national law or
are permissible within collective bargained agreements (CBA) structures or another collective
agreement mechanism.
56. Based on the abovementioned considerations, the DRC turned its attention to the evidence
on the file in respect of the club’s allegation that it acted supported by the national law. In
this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to quote (or provide the
corroboration evidence) regarding a specific provision of Venezuelan law in support of the
reduction of salaries carried out.
57. Hence, the Chamber was comforted in finding that the Respondent had failed no met its
burden of proof in establishing that the measures taken were allowed under national law.
58. In continuation and for the sake of completeness, the DRC went on analysing whether the
unilateral variation made by the Respondent was to be considered reasonable and
proportionate in accordance with the FIFA COVID 19 Guidelines. By doing so, it noted that in
addition to the previous considerations, the economic proposal made by the Respondent does
not appear to be unreasonable nor disproportionate from the outset.
59. Notwithstanding the above, the behaviour of the Respondent whom apparently did not even
pay the amounts proposed, resulted in the Claimant not receiving any income for a period of
over 4 months. Hence, the DRC found the behaviour of the Respondent reprehensible and
lacked good faith.
60. As a consequence, and in light with the DRC’s jurisprudence, the DRC decided that the
Respondent failed to demonstrate that the unilateral variation of the contract was licit,
entailing that on the basis of the principle pacta sunt servanda it should have paid the player’s
agreed remuneration for the relevant period.
61. Once the above had been established, the DRC turned to the matter of the termination of
the Contract.
62. The DRC observed that on 7 August 2020 the Claimant sent a default notice to the
Respondent requesting the amount of USD 15,750. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that
Page 10
REF FPSD-2367
the Respondent has neither provided evidence of having paid the aforementioned amount
nor presented any conclusive argument as to why the previous amount may not be due.
63. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Claimant had provided evidence of having sent
the relevant email correspondence to the Respondent, which demonstrated, to the DRC’s
satisfaction, that the Respondent was indeed put in default and made aware of the Claimant’s
requested salaries.
64. On the basis of the above the Chamber concluded that the Respondent substantially breached
the contract insofar as it failed to honour its main obligation, i.e. to remunerate the player
for his services, for a prolonged period of time and in spite of having been requested to
remedy its default.
65. For all the above, the Chamber found that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause
based on art. 14 of the Regulations, on 14 September 2020. Consequently, the party in
breach, the Respondent, shall be held liable for the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
66. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
67. The Chamber observed that according to the Claimant, he was owed the salaries from 15
March 2020 until August 2020, in the total amount of USD 19,250.
68. In addition, the Claimant argues to be entitled to the accommodation costs in the amount of
USD 490, in accordance with art. 14.2 of the Contract.
69. Moreover, the Claimant requests the amount of USD 2,250 as partially outstanding signing
on fee.
70. In this regard, the Chamber observed that no evidence has been submitted by the Respondent
in order to support the payment of the said amounts. Thus, the Chamber was convinced that
the aforementioned amounts shall be awarded as part of the outstanding remuneration due
to the Claimant.
71. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which
were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination and the expenses
validly incurred in the amount of USD 21,990.
72. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
Page 11
REF FPSD-2367
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Respondent to the Claimant 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.
76. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to him 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 USD 11,629 (i.e. the residual value of the Contract) serves as the basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
77. 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.
78. The Chamber noted that the Claimant had not been able to find new employment and
therefore he had not been able to mitigate his damages.
Page 12
REF FPSD-2367
79. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD
11,629 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
80. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 23 April 2021 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
84. 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.
85. 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
86. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football
agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to
be imposed on the parties.
Page 13
REF FPSD-2367
87. 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.
88. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-2367
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Yoni Javier Angulo Viveros, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Carabobo FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- USD 21,990 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
-
On USD 2,250 as from 14 January 2020 until the date of effective payment.
On USD 1,750 as from 20 March 2020 until the date of effective payment.
On USD 3,500 as from 20 April 2020 until the date of effective payment.
On USD 3,500 as from 20 May 2020 until the date of effective payment.
On USD 3,500 as from 20 June 2020 until the date of effective payment.
On USD 3,500 as from 20 July 2020 until the date of effective payment.
On USD 3,500 as from 20 August 2020 until the date of effective payment.
On USD 490 as from 12 March 2020 until the date of effective payment.
USD 11,629 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 23 April 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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 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.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 15
REF FPSD-2367
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 16