Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01866
Decision of the
DRC Judge
passed on 11 May 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Masaki Watanabe
COMPOSITION:
Jon Newman (USA), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Masaki Watanabe, Japan
Represented by Muhammad Azzairi Rosle
RESPONDENT:
Kelantan FC, Malaysia
Page 2 of 9
REF 20-01866
I.
Facts
1.
On 10 February 2020, a Japanese player, Masaki Watanabe (hereinafter: ’the Claimant’ or ‘the
player’) and the Malaysian club, Kelantan FC, (hereinafter: ‘the Respondent’ or ‘the club’)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid from 20 February 2020
until 30 October 2020.
2.
Pursuant to schedule A of the contract, the Claimant were entitled to a monthly salary of USD
4,000, which were due and payable by 7th day of the following month.
3.
Additionally, in accordance with schedule B of the contract, the Claimant was entitled, inter alia,
to the following benefits:
-
“a house/apartment - maximum up to RM 1,500.00/month rental. If the player wants to rent a
house/apartment which is more than the club can provide, the difference amount in rental must
be borne by player.
-
The club will pay for return flight tickets to Japan to the player and maximum two family members
only.”
4.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to fulfil its financial obligations as stipulated in
the contract, by not paying the salary and benefits to the Claimant in a timely manner.
5.
On 27 November 2020, the Claimant, sent a notice to the Respondent, indicating that it has failed
to pay him his salary for the months of April, May, June, July and October 2020, corresponding
to the total amount of USD 20,000, as well as his house rental allowance for the months of June,
July, August, September and October 2020, corresponding to the total amount of MYR (Ringgit
Malaysia) 7,500.
6.
In this context, the Respondent was provided with a 10 days’ deadline to comply with its financial
obligations towards the Claimant, however to no avail.
7.
On 1 December 2020, the Respondent replied to notice of the Claimant, stating, inter alia, the
following:
“we had made the announcement to all the Kelantan FC players that due to the Covid 19 that
the overdue salaries of 3 months (April 2020 to June 2020) will be paid at 50% ("Settlement
Proposal") and from July 2020 onwards we had paid their salaries in full. For this Settlement
Proposal, all 22 players of Kelantan FC had accepted the payment proposal and all their
outstanding salaries have been settled as of October 2020. Regrettably, Mr Masaki Watanabe is
the only player who refused to accept any payments.
Page 3 of 9
REF 20-01866
we consider his claims towards the Club as frivolous, vexatious and unacceptable because we had
offered the Settlement Proposal for the outstanding salary, but he refused it all the same. As such,
we stand by our decision to only pay as per the Settlement Offer at 50% for April 2020 to June
2020 (totalling USD6,000-00) and as for the October 2020 salary there will be a 30% deduction
(totalling USD2,800-00) accordingly.”
8.
In this context, the Claimant directly informed the club’s owner, Mr Norizam Tukiman, that the
50% salary deduction proposal is not acceptable to him.
9.
According to the Claimant, he attempted to reach a consensus with the Respondent, even prior
to sending his default notice.
10. On 22 December 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent at FIFA and requested
that the FIFA DRC award to the Claimant the total amount of MYR 91,857, broken down as
follows
-
the amount of USD 20,000 (MYR 80,000) as outstanding salaries for the months of April,
May, June, July and October 2020);
MYR 7,500 as housing allowances for the period between June to October 2020;
MYR 4,357 (USD 1,075) as the reimbursement of the costs of a flight ticket (note: receipt
of the flight ticket on file);
to impose sanctions on the Respondent under article 12bis of the RSTP.
11. Despite being invited to do so, the club failed to reply to the claim.
12. On 20 January 2021, the Respondent sent an email to FIFA, indicating that it would contact the
player to discuss the matter at hand and that FIFA would be updated in the event of a subsequent
proposal. However, a final proposal was never confirmed.
II. Considerations of the DRC Judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge (hereinafter also referred to as DRC judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. Taking into account the
wording of art. 21 of the January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par.1 of the Procedural Rules and emphasised
that, in accordance with art.24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC Judge is competent to deal with matters, which
concern employment-related disputes with an international dimension between players and clubs,
such as the present one, which involves a Japanese player and a Malaysian club.
3.
In continuation, the DRC Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations of the Status and
Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this respect, the DRC Judge
Page 4 of 9
REF 20-01866
confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, and considering the date when the claim was lodged, the October 2020
edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter
at hand.
4.
With the above having been established, the DRC Judge entered into the substance of the matter.
In doing so, he started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained
in the file. However, the DRC Judge emphasized that in the following considerations, he will refer
only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
First of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on 10 February 2020, the Claimant and the
Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 20 February until 30 October
2020, based on which the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 4,000 , as well as
several other benefits.
6.
The DRC judge further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the
Respondent, seeking payment of the total amount of MYR 91,857, asserting that the Respondent
had not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards him. More specifically, the Claimant indicated
that the Respondent had failed to pay his salaries for the months of April, May, June, July and
October 2020, as well as his housing and rental allowance for the months of June, July, August,
September and October 2020, which were still outstanding at date of termination of the contract,
i.e. 30 October 2020.
7.
The DRC judge emphasised that from the information on file, it turned out that the Respondent
on 1 December 2020 – in reply to the Claimant’s default letter dated 27 November - offered to
the Claimant a settlement proposal, which settlement proposal was not acceptable to the
Claimant.
8.
Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that – after having been provided with claim of the Claimant
- the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having
been invited to do so. By not presenting its position to the claim, the DRC judge was of the opinion
that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the
Claimant.
9.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred
that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the
basis of the documentation already on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents
presented by the Claimant.
10. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant, the DRC Judge concluded
that the Claimant had substantiated its claim pertaining to his outstanding remuneration with
sufficient documentary evidence.
Page 5 of 9
REF 20-01866
11. Consequently, the DRC Judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were
outstanding at the date of termination i.e. 30 October 2020.
12. In this context, the DRC judge held that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant, the total
amount of USD 20,000, corresponding to outstanding salaries due to him for the months of April,
May, June, July and October 2020
13. The DRC judge further decided that the housing and rental allowance in the amount of MYR
7,500 for the months of June, July, August, September and October 2020 shall also be awarded
to him, since there is a contractual basis for such claim.
14. Finally, with respect to the reimbursement of the flight ticket expenses, the DRC judge established
that on the basis of the documentary evidence submitted on file, which are the purchase receipts
of the flight ticket expenses and in reference to schedule B of the employment contract, the
amount of USD 1,027.29 can be awarded to the Claimant.
15. In addition, the DRC Judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more
than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.
16. In continuation, bearing in mind the foregoing considerations, the DRC judge referred to art.12bis
par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment
for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance
with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
17. In continuation, the DRC judge referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie
contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
18. The DRC Judge established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence
to impose sanctions on the Respondent. In this context, the DRC Judge highlighted that, over the
past 2 years under case ref. no.19-01571/akl and case ref. no.19-01705/maa, the Respondent
had already been found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima
facie contractual basis.
19. Moreover, the DRC judge referred to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, which establishes that
a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe
penalty.
20. Bearing in mind the above, the deciding body decided to impose a fine on the Respondent in
accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations. On account of the above and taking
into consideration the total amount of overdue payables due, the DRC judge regarded a fine
amounting to CHF 5,000 as appropriate and hence decided to impose said fine on the
Respondent.
Page 6 of 9
REF 20-01866
21. Furthermore, the DRC judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
22. In this regard, the DRC judge established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, he has
competence to impose a sanction on the Respondent. In particular, the sanction against clubs
shall consist in a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until
the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
23. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC judge decided that in the event that
the Respondent does not pay the amount due to the player within 45 days as from the moment
in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the
relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods
shall become effective on the club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
24. The DRC judge recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to
its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of
the Regulations.
Page 7 of 9
REF 20-01866
III. Decision of the DRC Judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Masaki Watanabe, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kelantan FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- USD 20,000 as outstanding remuneration;
- MYR 7,500 as house/apartment rental; and
- USD 1,027.29 as flight ticket expenses.
3.
A fine of CHF 5,000 is imposed on the Respondent (cf. note in relation to the payment of the fine
below).
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the DRC Judge:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
REF 20-01866
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 9 of 9