Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-16652
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 February 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Yaki Aithamy Yen Tavio
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Stefano SARTORI (Italy), Member
CLAIMANT:
Yaki Aithamy Yen Tavio, Chinese Taipei and Spain
Represented by Juan Alfonso Prieto Huang
RESPONDENT:
Wuhan Three Towns FC, China PR
Represented by Roy Chu
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-16652
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 January 2021, the Taiwanese and Spanish player, Yaki Aithamy Yen Tavio
(hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant), and the Chinese club, Wuhan Three Towns FC
(hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter:
the Contract) valid as from 1 January 2022 until 31 December 2022.
2.
In clause 7 of the Contract, the parties established the Player’s remuneration as follows:
“ARTICLE 7 Salary and Bonuses
1. [the Club] follows the Regulations on Salary and Bonus Management of Front Players
of China Football Association League Club formulated by China Football Association
League Committee.
2. [the Club] shall pay [the Player] 114.192 (RMB) as gross salary every month [the Club]
shall pay Party B 622,271 (RMB) as gross annual bonus. The individual income tax of the
part reaches the criteria to pay income taxes specified by the state, shall be deducted
from aforesaid salary and transmitted to the fiscal by [the Club].
3. When [the Player] fails to reach the match times, playing time or ratio required by [the
Club]. [the Club] has the right to duly subtract the above salary and the subtract methods
shall be specified in the Supplementary Agreement
4. [the Club] shall pay [the Player] match bonus according to team bonus plan. In case of
the Contract is not prematurely terminated, for the entire Contract term, if [the Club]
stays in Chinese League One, [the Player] shall be paid EURO30,000(net), if [the Club]
upgrades to Chinese Super League, [the Player] shall be paid EURO75.000(net)
5. In addition to salary and bonus, [the Club] shall not pay any money to [the Player] in
any name.
6. In case that [the Player] cannot participate in training and matches because of working
injury (including execution of tasks for National Team), [the Club] shall pay [the Player]
the salary in full amount and give due subsidy (in case of execution of tasks for National
Team, the subsidy shall be equal to the average bonus of the whole team in the matches).
7. In case that [the Player] cannot participate in training and matches because of injury
and diseases (other than due to work) as well as the contract has not been cancelled, the
salary that [the Club] shall pay [the Player] shall no less than 50% of the full amount,
except for those resulted from breach of law, breach of discipline and violation of social
ethics and other misbehavior.
8. Upon termination of the contract, [the Club] shall pay [the Player] salary on longer.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-16652
9. [the Player] shall not enjoy the above standard and only enjoy the treatment of salary
and bonuses of Reserves team when transferring to Reserves team.
10. The salary distribution date is 6 Day of each month, and the work first and pay later
system is adopted.”
3.
Clause 13 had the following jurisdiction clause:
“ARTICLE 13 Settlement of Dispute
1.The disputes arising from the fulfillment of or in connection with the contract shall be
settled through friendly consultations between both parties:
2. In case no settlement can be reached through consultation, the dispute shall be
submitted to the Proceeding Commission of CFA. In case that [the Player] is a Chinese
citizen, the award of the Commission is final and binding.
3. In case that [the Player] is a foreign citizen. The proceeding can be submitted to FIFA
and the award of FIFA is final and binding.”
4.
On 30 December 2022, the Club made a post on Facebook stating that it had won the “2022
Ping An Chinese Football Association Super League Championship”.
5.
On an unspecified date, the Claimant exchanged some messages with a contact saved as
“D. Yu T Wuhan TT” (quoted verbatim):
“(…) Player: Se sabe algo del bonus?
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Si. Creo q este mes se dará. El bonus, está en proceso y papeles.
Player: Bueno a esperar un poco
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Si, un poquito paciencia, cuando se sabe algo te digo la primera hora.
(…)
Player: Buenas tardes Yu, como estas? Me han dicho los compañeros que empiezan a
pagar el bonus de campeón el lunes…? Como va a ser el pago?
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Buenas tardes. Yalu. Si, empieza a pagar el lunes. Se divide a 6 pagos.
Primera seria 20% de todo
Player: Entonces se va a dividir los 60 millones en 6 pagos?
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-16652
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Si
(…)”
Freely translated into English:
"(...) Player: Any word on the bonus?
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Yes. I think it will be given this month. The bonus is in the process and
paperwork.
Player: Well, let's wait a little bit.
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Yes, a little bit patience, when we know something, I will tell you the
first hour.
(...)
Player: Good afternoon Yu, how are you? I have been told by my colleagues that they
start to pay the champion bonus on Monday...? How is the payment going to be?
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Good afternoon. Yalu. Yes, it starts to be paid on Monday. It is divided
into 6 payments. The first one will be 20% of everything.
Player: So the 60 million will be divided into 6 payments?
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Yes
(...)"
6.
Also on an unspecified date, the Claimant and “D. Yu T Wuhan TT” exchanged the following
messages (quoted verbatim):
“Player: Tu sigues en el club?
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Hasta ahora si. Sigo aquí
Player: Necesito saber tu opinión sincera, pagarán lo que deben del bonus de campeón
(…)
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Sinceramente, creo q lo pagarán, pero necesita tiempo
Player: Esperemos que si
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-16652
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Conoces Mr Liu. Siempre hace lo que ha comprometido. Ahora necesita
tiempo creo. Cada vez pregunto eso, me dice que si pagarán”
Freely translated into English:
"Player: Are you still at the club?
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: So far, yes. I'm still here.
Player: I need to know your honest opinion, will they pay what they owe the champion
bonus (...)
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: Honestly, I think they will pay it, but it needs time.
Player: Let's hope so
D. Yu T Wuhan TT: You know Mr Liu. He always does what he has committed. Now he
needs time I think. Every time I ask that, he says yes they will pay”.
7.
On 3 July 2023, the Club paid the Player CNY 318,375.49, though the parties dispute the
nature of such payment. According to the Player, the nature of this payment was
“remuneration bonus / competition fund”, while the Club stated that it was for “match and
training cost”.
8.
On 10 July 2024, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested the payment
of CNY 1,273,501.60 net plus interest within 10 days.
9.
On 25 December 2024, the Chinese Football Association (CFA) informed the FIFA general
secretariat that the Player was registered with the Club as a “resident of Chinese Taipei”.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 18 October 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
11. According to the Claimant, the Club failed to pay him a bonus for winning the Chinese Super
League.
12. In this regard, the Claimant mentioned that, on 30 December 2022, the Club won the
Chinese Super League and, therefore, the Club committed to paying the main team a
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-16652
collective bonus of CNY 60,000,000. The Player further stated that, of that amount, he is
entitled to CNY 1,591,877, and that the Club informed him that the bonus was going to be
paid in six instalments, with the first payment being 20% of it.
13. In this sense, the Player alleged that, on 7 July 2023, the Club only paid him CNY 318,375.40.
However, the Club did not make any other payment to him. Based on this, the Player
argued that the Club owes him CNY 1,273,501.60.
14. As further evidence, the Player submitted six sworn statements from different players, in
which they mentioned that the Club committed to paying a bonus of CNY 60,000,000 and
had only paid 20% of it.
15. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following (quoted verbatim):
“We hereby request the DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER OF THE FIFA FOOTBALL
TRIBUNAL to deem this WRITTEN APPLICATION to be filed on behalf of Mr. YAKIAITHAMY
YEN TAVIO, together with the copies thereof and the documents thereto, and a CLAIM FOR
PAYMENT (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 12BIS OF THE RSTP - OVERDUE PAYABLES) following
the appropriate procedures, to issue, in due course, a RULING:
A. - Accepting in full the claim for payment made by Mr. YAKI AITHAMY YEN TAVIO against
WUHAN THREE TOWNS FOOTBALL CLUB.
B. - Ordering WUHAN THREE TOWNS FOOTBALL CLUB to pay Mr. YAKI AITHAMY YEN TAVIO
the amount of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
ONE CHINESE YUAN AND SIXTY CENTS (1,273,501.60 RMB) net.
C. - Ordering WUHAN THREE TOWNS FOOTBALL CLUB to pay Mr. YAKI AITHAMY YEN TAVIO,
the five percent (5%) interest on the above amount accrued as December 31st, 2022 until
the effective date of payment.
D. - Imposing on WUHAN THREE TOWNS FOOTBALL CLUB sanctions for overdue payables
pursuant to article 12bis para. 4 of the RSTP.
E. - Condemning WUHAN THREE TOWNS FOOTBALL CLUB to bear all the procedural costs
of the present proceeding.”
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. In its reply, the Club first disputed FIFA’s jurisdiction, stating that there is no international
dimension. In this context, the Club argued that, on 24 January 2018, the Chinese Football
Association (hereinafter: CFA) issued a notice asserting that Chinese clubs could only
register one “Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan region player”, and such a transfer was
deemed to be a transfer of a domestic player. According to the Club, since the Player is a
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-16652
resident of Taiwan, any transfer of the Player should be made in accordance with the
applicable rules to domestic players.
17. Based on the above, the Club contended that once the Player chose to play for a
professional club in China PR and not be registered as a foreign player, he shall be deemed
to have accepted the jurisdiction of the CFA, as well as its rules, including the rules on
dispute resolution.
18. Hence, the Club asserted that there is no international dimension, and FIFA has no
jurisdiction to hear this claim.
19. Regarding the merits, the Respondent mentioned that it has fulfilled all the obligations
towards the Player. The Club stated that, although it did win the Chinese Super League in
2022, there is no agreement between the parties regarding a bonus for winning that title.
Conversely, the Club referred to clause 7.4 of the Contract, saying that the only bonus
established therein was for staying in the Chinese League One or promoting to the Chinese
Super League, but not for winning it.
20. Furthermore, the Club argued that the Player failed to provide evidence to support his
claim. In this regard, and specifically concerning the chat messages, the Respondent stated
that the contact saved as “D.Yu T Wuhan TT” is neither the legal representative nor an
authorised representative of the Club, and is not speaking on behalf of the Club. According
to the Club, these messages were merely presumptions about the bonus, and the contact
did not expressly recognise that the Player was entitled to receive a portion of CNY
60,000,000 or, more precisely, CNY 1,591,877.
21. Additionally, the Club stated that the payment of CNY 318,375.40 was for “match training
and cost” rather than the bonus requested by the Player.
22. Regarding the sworn statements, the Respondent pointed out that the Player and five of
the six players were providing witness statements for each other. The Club mentioned that
the Player himself provided a false statement in the cases of the players before the CFA, as
he does not even speak Chinese, and merely filled in his information and signed. The Club
remarked that five out of the six players had pending claims against the Club, and the
remaining one had lodged a claim before.
23. Furthermore, the Club alleged that all statements were prepared with the same content,
as it was in the cases before the CFA, when the claims were rejected due to a lack of legal
and contractual basis. The Club also argued that the six players barely understand English,
and that the content of the statements was prepared in advance, so they only changed his
information and signed. Moreover, the Club highlighted that the statements were signed
on 14 October 2024, when the five cases before the CFA were still pending, as the decisions
were issued on 31 October 2024. Therefore, the Club concluded that the witnesses were
interested parties in the claim.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-16652
24. The requests for relief of the Respondent were the following (quoted verbatim):
“41. In view of all the factual and legal arguments mentioned above, Wuhan Three Towns
Football Club hereby requests the FIFA Tribunal to:
i. Rule that the FIFA Football Tribunal has no jurisdiction on the case at hand.
Alternatively, if the FIFA Football Tribunal considers that it has jurisdiction on the case at
hand:
i. Rule that the claim of the Claimant is rejected;
ii. Rule that no payment or sanctions shall be applied to the Respondent;
iii. To the extent that any costs of these proceedings are to be paid by the parties, rule
that Claimant shall be responsible for payment of such costs.”
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
25. In his rejoinder, the Player argued that the international dimension was unquestionable, as
he holds the Spanish-Taiwanese citizenship and even the Club recognised that he was
registered as a “Taiwan region player”. In this regard, the Claimant also mentioned that the
Player has played for the Chinese Taipei Football Association (hereinafter: CTFA), which is
an independent member association of FIFA. Thus, the Player asserted that the CTFA is
independent and unrelated to the CFA.
26. Moreover, the Player stated that the notice provided by the Club itself shows that he was
registered under the quota reserved for Taiwanese players and not the national ones. In
this context, the Player remarked that it is undisputed that he is not a Chinese citizen and,
therefore, FIFA has jurisdiction.
27. Lastly, the Claimant argued that he has fully proven that he is entitled to the bonus as
follows:
a) The Club informed him that the bonus was going to be paid in six instalments, with the
first payment being 20% of it;
b) The Claimant received a partial payment, and the concept of this payment was “payment
bonus” and not “match and training cost”. In this regard, the Player mentioned that it is not
credible that the Club would have paid him for “match and training cost” seven months
after the termination of the Contract;
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-16652
c) The six sworn statements are conclusive. The fact that the CFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber did not recognise the bonus in no way affects the present claim.
d) The Club did not respond to the formal notification.
d. Final comments of the Respondent
28. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent failed to submit its final comments.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
29. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 18 October 2024 and submitted for decision
on 27 February 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the January 2025 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.
30. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the January
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2025 edition) (hereinafter: the
Regulations), 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 Taiwanese and Spanish player and a Chinese club.
31. Nonetheless, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of FIFA
to deal with the present matter.
32. More specifically, the Respondent stated that, in 2018, the CFA established specific
regulations regarding the players from Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR and the Taiwan region,
by which transfers of these players to Chinese clubs were considered domestic transfers.
Therefore, the Club argued that the Player, as a player from the Taiwan region, is subject
to the rules applicable to the domestic players and not those applicable to foreign players.
33. The Chamber noted that, conversely, the Claimant argued that the international dimension
is unquestionable, as he is not a Chinese citizen and holds the Spanish-Taiwanese
citizenship. Furthermore, the Player mentioned that the CTFA is independent from the CFA.
34. In this context, the Chamber moved on to analyse whether this dispute is a matter of
international dimension.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-16652
35. First, the Chamber noted that the relevant provision cited by the Club set forth:
“The specific regulations are as follows:
1. "Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR and Taiwan region player" refers specifically to: player
who is first registered with the Football Association of Hong Kong or Macau, and is a
Chinese citizen among the permanent residents of the Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR;
and player who is first registered with the Chinese Taipei Football Association, and the
player's household registration is the Taiwan region. The identity of the above-mentioned
players is determined by their first registered Football Association, by providing
confirmation documents and related materials.
2. Each Chinese Super League and Chinese League One club can register at the same time
no more than one "Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR and Taiwan region player", and the player
cannot be a goalkeeper position player, and the transfer occupies the club's domestic
player transfer quota for the current season.
3. When the above players go through the registration procedures with the Chinese
Football Association, the players in the Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR shall present the
"Mainland Travel Permits for Hong Kong and Macao Residents" and the permanent
resident ID card, and the players in Taiwan region shall present the "Mainland Travel
Permits for Taiwan Residents".
4. Players who have filed in accordance with the requirements of the "Notice on Adjusting
the Transfer Policy of Players from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan" ([2015] No. 625) can
continue to implement the provisions of the notice before the expiration of the original
contract, but their clubs cannot newly transfer in the "Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR and
Taiwan region player" mentioned above.
5. The application of the above provisions is limited to the men's adult competitions
hosted by the Chinese Football Association and participated by Chinese Super League
and Chinese League One clubs. When clubs participate in competitions sponsored by the
AFC, the identification and quota restrictions of players in Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR
and Taiwan region shall be implemented in accordance with the relevant regulations of
the AFC.
The above regulations will be implemented starting from the 2018 season and will be
reflected in the relevant competition regulations.”
36. Then, the Chamber wished to refer to the well-established jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal, according to which FIFA is only competent to hear an employment-related dispute
between a player and a club when the parties have different nationalities, without which
the international element of the dispute is not fulfilled.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-16652
37. Based on the above, the Chamber considered that, regardless of the rules established by
the CFA regarding the registration of players from Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR and the
Taiwan region, or the fact that the CTFA is an independent member association, the key
element to establish whether this dispute has an international dimension is to determine
if the parties share a nationality.
38. The Chamber observed that the Player alleged that he holds dual Spanish and Taiwanese
citizenship. Additionally, the Chamber pointed out that he provided his Spanish passport
in support of this claim. However, the Chamber recalled its well-established practice that,
when a player holds dual nationality, the nationality to be considered is the one under
which the player was registered.
39. In this sense, the Chamber emphasised that the Contract stated that the nationality of the
Player is “Republic of China”, i.e., Chinese Taipei, while the Club is from China PR.
Furthermore, on 25 December 2024, the CFA informed that the Player was registered with
the Club as a “resident of Chinese Taipei”.
40. On top of the above, the Chamber pointed out that the Club did not dispute the fact that
the Player is not a Chinese citizen but only argued that he should be subject to the
applicable rules of the CFA due to the specific regulations.
41. In view of the above, and based on the evidence on file, the Chamber concluded that this
is a matter of international dimension, and that FIFA has jurisdiction to decide on the
matter.
42. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
43. 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
44. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-16652
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
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
45. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerns a claim
of a player against a club for the payment of a bonus.
46. The Chamber recalled that, on the one hand, the Player argued that the Club failed to pay
him a bonus for winning the Chinese Super League in 2022, while on the other hand, the
Respondent stated that the parties never agreed upon such a bonus and that the Player is
not entitled to any amount.
47. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Player was entitled to the bonus and, if so, whether the Club failed to pay him.
48. First, the Chamber wished to underline that the bonus was not stipulated in the Contract
or in any other document signed by the parties, which is undisputed by them. In this sense,
clause 7.4 of the Contract only established a bonus in case the Club stayed in the Chinese
League One or got promoted to the Chinese Super League. Furthermore, it is also
undisputed that the Club won the Chinese Super League in 2022.
49. Then, the Chamber noted that the Player provided several pieces of evidence to prove that
he is entitled to the bonus: (i) some chat messages; (ii) a proof of payment; and (iii) six sworn
statements. Additionally, the Player stated that the Club did not reply to the notice of
default he sent requesting this bonus.
50. Therefore, the Chamber moved on to analyse the evidence provided in turn.
(i)
Chat messages
51. Regarding the chat messages, the Chamber underscored that they were disputed by the
Respondent, who argued that the contact saved as “D. Yu T Wuhan TT” was neither the legal
representative nor an authorised representative of the Club. In any case, the Club
mentioned that the messages were merely assumptions and not an acknowledgement of
the Player’s entitlement to the bonus.
52. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that these messages were not dated, making it
impossible to know when they were sent. More importantly, the Claimant failed to provide
an explanation of who the contact saved as “D. Yu T Wuhan TT” was, the alleged person
with whom he was messaging. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Player only
stated that “the Club” sent these messages, without specifying which person he was
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-16652
communicating with or establishing how this person could be understood to be
representing the Club. Furthermore, the Chamber found it important to remark that the
Player failed to address this issue in his rejoinder, even when the Respondent disputed the
allegations holding “D. Yu T Wuhan TT” as a Club representative.
53. Based on the above, the Chamber considered that it cannot establish that the messages
from “D. Yu T Wuhan TT” were binding upon the Club, as the Player, who had the burden
of proof, failed to demonstrate this to the requisite degree of certainty.
(ii)
Proof of payment
54. Then, the Chamber noted that the Claimant provided a proof of a payment made on 3 July
2023 for CNY 318,375.40. In the translation provided by the Claimant, it was stated that this
payment was for “remuneration bonus”, while the Respondent argued that it clearly
indicated that the payment was for “match and training cost”.
55. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the Club failed to provide an explanation
demonstrating why the proof of payment did not mention “remuneration bonus” and failed
to clarify why the Club would have paid the Player an amount for “match and training cost”
several months after the expiration of the Contract.
56. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the payment received by the Player was made
for “remuneration bonus”. Nonetheless, in the Chamber’s opinion, this by itself does not
imply that the Player was entitled to receive any further amount.
(iii)
Sworn statements
57. Additionally, the Chamber observed that the Player provided six witness statements, in
which former teammates declared that the Club and the main team had agreed upon a
payment of a collective bonus of CNY 60,000,000. Moreover, the players stated that the
Club had only paid 20% of the bonus and that all of them had claims before the CFA.
58. In this regard, the Chamber wished to refer to art. 13 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which
establishes, inter alia, that the Chamber has ultimate discretion as to the weight it gives to
the evidence. At this point, the Chamber underscored that (i) the six statements contained
exactly the same format and wording, with the witnesses only having to fill in their names,
and (ii) all of the witnesses acknowledged having claims against the Club before the CFA,
requesting the payment of the same bonus. Furthermore, the statements were all dated
14 October 2024, and the Club provided evidence demonstrating that five out of six
disputes between the witnesses and the Club were decided on 31 October 2024, i.e., after
they provided their statements.
59. Hence, the Chamber decided that the witness statements submitted by the Club shall be
considered of limited probative value in the current investigation, as there is a visible
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-16652
conflict of interest when taking into account that, at the date the statements were issued,
five out of six witnesses were involved in a dispute against the Respondent, claiming, inter
alia, the exact same bonus. Additionally, the remaining witness also acknowledged having
made a claim against the Club for this bonus.
(iv)
Conclusion
60. In light of the above analysis, the Chamber deemed that the Player had not discharged his
burden of proving that he was in fact entitled to the bonus. Although he demonstrated that
he received a payment for a bonus after the employment relationship ended, the Chamber
found that there are no further elements in the file to sufficiently establish that this
payment was 20% of a total amount that the parties agreed upon as a consequence of
having won the Chinese Super League, and that he is entitled to the remaining 80%.
61. In this respect, the Chamber emphasised that the Player failed to provide any evidence
demonstrating that the Club indeed undertook to pay a bonus for winning the Chinese
Super League, or evidence whereby the Club specified the amount to which he was entitled.
He also failed to demonstrate what the supposed payment dates agreed upon by the
parties were, or the manner in which it was to be paid.
62. Considering that this bonus was not contractually foreseen, the Chamber was of the
opinion that the Player had the burden of providing considerable evidence showing that
he was indeed entitled to the bonus for the amount that he is claiming. Nonetheless, the
Chamber determined that the evidence provided is insufficient to uphold the claim.
63. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to mention that the fact that the Club
did not reply to the notice of default cannot be understood as a tacit acknowledgement
that the Club owed him the claimed amount, as it is for the Player to prove the fact that he
is asserting, i.e., his entitlement to the bonus (cf. art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
64. In light of all the above, the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim on its entirety,
due to a lack of evidence and contractual basis.
d. Costs
65. 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.
66. 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.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-16652
67. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-16652
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Yaki Aithamy Yen
Tavio.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Yaki Aithamy Yen Tavio, is rejected.
3.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-16652
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 18