Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-10620
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 September 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Raphael da Silva Arruda
BY:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), member
CLAIMANT:
Raphael da Silva Arruda, Brazil
Represented by Breno Costa Ramos Tannuri
RESPONDENT:
Esteghlal FC, IR Iran
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-10620
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 7 March 2022 the Brazilian player Raphael da Silva Arruda (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant) and the Iranian club Esteghlal (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) signed an
employment contract to be valid until 30 June 2022 (hereinafter: the Old Contract).
2.
In July 2022, the Club and the Player concluded a new employment agreement (hereinafter:
the New Contract) having validity from 3 July 2022 until 31 June 2024.
3.
In accordance with art. 4 of the New Contract, the Player was entitled the following:
Season 2022/2023:
-
USD 100,000 as signing bonus within 10 days of signing of the New Contract;
USD 80,000 on 30 September 2022;
USD 80,000 on 30 November 2022;
USD 80,000 on 30 January 2023;
USD 80,000 on 30 March 2023; and
USD 80,000 on 30 June 2023.
Season 2023/2024
- USD 100,000 within 10 days of the starting of the season;
- USD 80,000 on 30 September 2023;
- USD 80,000 on 30 November 2023;
- USD 80,000 on 30 January 2024;
- USD 80,000 on 30 March 2024; and
- USD 80,000 on 30 June 2024.
4.
Additionally, under art. 5.1 of the New Contract, the Club undertook to pay the following
bonuses to the Player:
-
“Iranian Premier League Championship: $ 20,000
Iranian knock-out cup Championship: $ 15,000
2023/24 ACL Championship: $ 30,000
2023/24 ACL match-winning bonus: $ 400
Match-Winning Bonus for Iranian Premier League Away games: $ 200
Match-Winning Bonus for Iranian Premier League Home games: $ 200”.
5.
Moreover, under art. 13 of the New Contract, the Club acknowledged an outstanding
remuneration in favour of the Player of USD 20,800, which was deriving from the financial
obligations set under the Old Contract.
6.
Finally, under art. 6.5 of the New Contract, the Club undertook to provide the Player with
“2 round business-class and 2 round Eco-class (Total 4 round tickets in each season) flight tickets
to and from Brazil to Tehran in each season for the player and his family.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-10620
7.
Besides the above, art. 5.2 of the New Contract established that:
“The player accepted that the club was authorized to deduct from the total contract amount
in case of unjustified absence or delay (if the disciplinary code of the club does not specify a
higher penalty.) In each session of training one percent of the contract and in each session of
matches (official or friendly) ten percent of the contract and in each day of camp one percent
of the contract and in each training class session one percent. These amounts can be summed
up.”
8.
By correspondence dated 1 December 2022, the Player put the Club in default of USD
172,682 as outstanding remuneration and contextually granted 15 days to remedy the
alleged default.
9.
On 14 December 2022, the Player acknowledged receipt of payment of USD 58,000 by the
Club and reminded the latter that an amount of USD 114,000 had remained outstanding,
hence granted a further deadline of 10 days for the Club to remedy its default.
10. On 23 May 2023, the Player sent a third default notice warning the Club that the sum of
USD 237,600 was still outstanding and granted once again a 15 days deadline to remedy
the default.
11. On 13 June 2023, the Player notified the Club the unilateral termination of the New
Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
12. On 20 June 2023 the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Player
13. In his claim, the Player stated that the Club failed to comply with its financial obligations
several times during the entire contractual period, which led to multiple default notices
and eventually to the termination of the New Contract as ultima ratio.
14. In particular, the Player explained that the Club did not pay due salaries and bonuses for a
total of USD 237,600, while it also failed to reimburse the relevant travel expenses the
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-10620
Player had incurred to cover the flights from Tehran to Dubai and from Dubai to Brazil, as
stipulated under the New Contract.
15. In this context, the Player estimated that the average value of his salary was USD 41,667
(USD 500,000/12), hence the amount of USD 237,600 due by the Club at the time of the
termination would correspond to more than 5 monthly salaries in arrears.
16. Accordingly, the Player was of the opinion oh having had just cause to terminate the New
Contract on 13 June 2023.
17. Accordingly, the Player also requested a compensation for the breach of contract by the
Club, amounting to the residual value of the New Contract.
18. The Claimant presented the following requests for relief:
-
“ (..) SECOND – To issue a finding that the Club breached the Employment Contract and that
the Player terminated the Employment Contract unilaterally but with undisputed just cause;
-
THIRD – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 65,000 net due as outstanding salary due
on 30 November 2022, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2022 until
the date of effective payment;
-
FOURTH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 80,000 net due as outstanding salary due
on 30 January 2023, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
-
FIFTH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 80,000 net due as outstanding salary due
on 30 March 2023, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
-
SIXTH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 12,600 net due as outstanding bonuses, plus
default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
-
SEVENTH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 4,817.60 net due as reimbursement of
the flight tickets the latter had to afford to return from Tehran to Dubai, plus default interest
at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 3 June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
-
EIGHTH – To order the Club to pay the Player DHS 37,900.00 net due as reimbursement of
the flight tickets the latter had to afford to return from Dubai to Brazil, plus default interest
at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-10620
-
NINETH – To order the Club to pay the Player USD 580,000 net due as compensation,
plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 June 2023 until the date of effective
payment; (…)“
b. Position of the Club
19. In its reply, the Club first argued that the Player would have no contractual basis to claim
the sum of USD 10,000 as Iranian Super Cup winner, hence this request shall be
disregarded.
20. Secondly, the Club declared having paid the Player respectively USD 800 and EUR 400 as
“winning bonuses” which shall be deduced from the claimed sum of USD 2,600.
21. In continuation, with regard to the demand for reimbursement of the relevant flight tickets,
the Club argued having already paid the following tickets for the Player and his family:
-
“4 business class flight tickets on the route Sao Paolo-Dubai –Tehran on July 9th, 2022, for
the player and his family “Joao Gabriel Soeiro Da Silva Arruda, Raphaella Soeiro Da Silva
Arruda, Amanda Soeiro Da Silva Arruda and Raphael Da Silva Arruda” -(which is equal to
2 round business class tickets already –so the club obligation regarding the business class
tickets are fulfilled);
-
4 Economy class flight tickets on the route Dubai –Sao Paolo on June 6th, 2023, for the
player and his family “Joao Gabriel Soeiro Da Silva Arruda, Raphaella Soeiro Da Silva
Arruda, Amanda Soeiro Da Silva Arruda and Raphael Da Silva Arruda” -(which is equal to 2
round Economy class tickets already;
-
4 business class flight tickets on the route Tehran-Dubai–Tehran on September 10th, 2022,
for the player and his family “Joao Gabriel Soeiro Da Silva Arruda, Raphaella Soeiro Da Silva
Arruda, Amanda Soeiro Da Silva Arruda and Raphael Da Silva Arruda” -(which is equal to 2
round business class tickets already).
-
4 economy class flight tickets on the route Tehran-Dubai–Tehran on November 2th, 2022,
for the player and his family “Joao Gabriel Soeiro Da Silva Arruda, Raphaella Soeiro Da Silva
Arruda, Amanda Soeiro Da Silva Arruda and Raphael Da Silva Arruda”- (The club as it is
clear have had bought even more than the obligations as per the contract).”
22. In this context, the Club rebutted the Player's claim regarding the ticket purchase fee
(USD4,817.60 + DHS 37,900.00) as it would exceed what stipulated in the New Contract.
23. In continuation, the Club objected to the Player’s calculation regarding the outstanding
salaries, arguing to have already paid a total of USD 224,000 to the Player and that the
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-10620
actual value of the outstanding sum would be instead USD 196,000, hence, in the Club’s
view, the amount to be awarded to the Player shall be reduced accordingly.
24. In this respect, the Club submit several receipts of payment, allegedly having paid the
following sums:
(a) EUR 25,000 on 11 August 2022;
(b) EUR 80,000 on 27 September 2022;
(c) USD 58,000 on 11 December 2022; and
(d) USD 60,000 on 1 January 2023.
25. Moreover, the Club argued that pursuant to the relevant rules of the Iranian Football
Federation (IRIFF), as further recalled under art. 7 of the New Contract, a total of 2.5% of
the financial value of the New Contract should suffer a deduction every season as
registration fee due by the clubs affiliated to IRIFF in order to register their players.
26. Finally, the Club rejected the request for compensation by the Player arguing that the
latter’s request lacks legal basis, namely as the Player would be able to find another team
before the end of the registration period and such team would offer him at least an equal
amount of money, hence the damage could (and would) be likely mitigated.
27. In this respect, the Club alleged that another club from UAE has offered the Player a
contract pending the present dispute in front of FIFA, and that the Player did not sign with
it just to blackmail the Club in order to obtain new better financial conditions under a
potential new agreement.
28. Accordingly, in the Club’s view, the Player failed to mitigate the suffered damage on
purpose and acted in bad faith.
29. In conclusion, the Club’s requests for relief were the following:
-
To reduce the amount of outstanding salaries claimed by the Player to USD 196,000 based
on the payment proofs;
-
To reject the Player’s request for compensation (…)
c. Player’s final comments
30. Inquired by FIFA on the payments alleged by the Club, the Player argued that the Club
miscalculated the payments effectively realized in his favour, namely because of a nonaccurate conversion rate USD - EUR.
31. In this respect, the Player remarked that the currency adopted under the New Contract is
US Dollars only and contextually illustrated all the respective conversion rates applicable
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-10620
at the time of the payment by the Club, arguing that the actual amount paid by the latter
corresponds to USD 221,088, while the entire remuneration due until May 2023 – without
considering the bonuses – had been established in USD 440,800.
32. Yielding the above, the Player partially amended his claim for outstanding salaries to the
amount of USD 219,712.
33. In continuation, regarding the alleged match bonuses based on art. 5.1 of the New
Contract, the Player premised that during the 2022-2023 season, the Club won 18 matches
in the Iranian Premier League, thus the Club should have paid to the Player a total of USD
3,600 (i.e., USD 200 x 18).
34. In this context, the Player argued that the Club paid only USD 800 instead, hence the sums
of USD 2,800 remained outstanding, while the receipt of EUR 400 submitted by the Club
would have been farfetched by the latter.
35. With regard to the bonus of USD 10,000 allegedly due for the victory of the Iranian Super
Cup, the Player declared having had a verbal agreement only with the Club but contextually
argued that the latter never disputed the relevant Player’s request in occasion of the third
default notice sent by the latter in May 2023, hence in the Player’s view the Club tacitly
admitted its existence and the said bonus shall be awarded.
36. Moving to the issue of the flight tickets, the Player stated that the Club has misrepresented
the reality of facts.
37. In particular, regarding the flight dated “9 July 2022”, the Player argued that the Club only
paid 2 business class flight tickets and 2 economic flight tickets, while the Player himself
paid for the upgrade of the 2 economic class flights tickets to business class.
38. Accordingly, the Player confirmed his request for a reimbursement of DHS 37,900.
39. In this context, however, the Player acknowledged that the Club paid for the journey Tehran
– Dubai.
40. In continuation, regarding the alleged deduction of 2.5 % of the contractual value as
registration fee imposed by the IRIFF, the Player argued that the New Contract does not
state anything in that respect, while on the contrary all the sums thereto stipulated are net.
Nevertheless, the Player added that if FIFA DRC considered that the Club was somehow
entitled to deduct 2.5% of the total remuneration due to the Player, such 2.5% should be
calculated taking into account a remuneration of USD 500,000 since the USD 20,800 was a
debt from the old contract.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-10620
41. Finally, the Player repeated his request for compensation amounting to the residual value
of the New Contract and confirmed having signed no further employment contracts up to
the current date.
42. Notwithstanding the above, the Player demanded an additional compensation of 6 months
in case of signing a new contract during the pending proceedings, thus amounting to USD
250,002 (i.e., USD 41,677 x 6).
43. The requests of relief by the Player, as amended, were the following:
-
“USD 59,712 net (or subsidiarily USD 47,212 in case of 2,5 % IRIFF fee) as outstanding salary due
on 30 November 2022, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
-
USD 80,000 net as outstanding salary due on 30 January 2023, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a.
as of 1 February 2023 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 80,000 net as outstanding salary due on 30 March 2023, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a.
as of 31 March 2023 until the date of effective payment;
-
USD 12,800 net as outstanding bonuses, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 June
2023 until the date of effective payment;
-
DHS 37,900 (or USD 10,317) net as reimbursement of the flight tickets the latter had to afford
to return from Dubai to Brazil, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 6 June 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
-
USD 580,000 net as compensation, plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 June 2023
until the date of effective payment;”
d. Club’s final submission
44. The Club did not provide any further comment on the matter, in spite of having been
invited to do so by the FIFA general secretariat.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
45. 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 20 June 2023 and submitted
for decision on 21 September 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March
2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-10620
Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the
matter at hand.
46. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player
and an Iranian club.
47. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 June 2023, the aforementioned edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
48. 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
49. 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
50. 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 justification of the
early termination of the contract by the Player, based on the alleged non-payment of
certain financial obligations by the Club as per the New Contract, thus in accordance with
art. 14bis of the Regulations.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-10620
51. In particular, the DRC observed that, pursuant to the New Contract, the total remuneration
(salaries only) due by the Club until the moment of the termination would correspond to
USD 440,800, while according to the Player, at the time of the termination the following
amounts had remained outstanding:
USD 59,712 as partial salary due for November 2022;
USD 80,000 as salary due for January 2023;
USD 80,000 as salary due for March 2023.
52. In this context, the Chamber took note that, conversely, according to the Club, a total of
USD 224,000 had been paid by the latter whereas the outstanding sums in favour of the
Player would actually amount to USD 196,000, hence the Club demanded to reduce the
monies to be awarded to the Player accordingly.
53. In this respect, the members of the Chamber also noted that two of the four receipts
submitted by the Club in order to prove the relevant payments (respectively dated 11
August 2022 and 27 September 2022) adopt a different currency (EUR) from the one
established in the New Contract (USD).
54. Accordingly, the Chamber acknowledged that in order to verify the quantity of monies
effectively paid by the Club, it shall first proceed to a conversion of the relevant currencies.
55. In doing so, the DRC noted that the Player provided clear indications regarding the
conversion rate adopted with respect to the respective due dates of each payment, while
the Club did not provide any comment in that respect.
56. Having the Chamber verified the accuracy of the calculations submitted by the Player, it
established that at the time of the termination the Club had effectively paid a total of USD
221,088 only, thus remaining outstanding salaries for a total of USD 219,712.
57. In this context, the DRC wished to emphasize that it could not welcome the request by the
Club for a 2.5% deduction of the financial value of the New Contract as alleged registration
fee imposed by IRIFF, namely as the amounts indicated in the New Contract are expressed
as net, whereas there is no mention of the said fee thereto.
58. In continuation, the DRC moved its attention to the issue of the bonuses claimed by the
Player and acknowledged that the latter claimed a total of USD 12,800, broken down as
follows:
-
USD 10,000 as bonus for the victory of the Iranian Super Cup;
USD 2,800 as winning-match bonus stipulated under art. 5.1 of the New Contract.
59. In this respect, the DRC noted that, under the New Contract, the parties only stipulated
bonuses subject to the following conditions:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-10620
-
“Iranian Premier League Championship: $ 20,000
Iranian Knock-Out Cup Championship: $ 15,000
2023/24 ACL Championship: $ 30,000
2023/24 ACL Match-Winning Bonus: $ 400
Match-Winning Bonus for Iranian Premier League Away Games: $ 200
Match-Winning Bonus for Iranian Premier League Home Games: $ 200”.
60. In this context, the members of the Chamber observed that there was no indication of the
bonus alleged by the Player in relation to the victory of the Iranian Super Cup, while it
contextually recalled the Player’s statement according to which the mentioned bonus
would have been agreed verbally by the parties.
61. Furthermore, the DRC also took note of the argument adopted by the Player in support of
his position, namely by referring that the Club did not reply to the Player’s default notice
dated 23 May 2023, in which the Player had put the Club in default of the relevant bonus,
thus acknowledging the existence of such debt.
62. In this respect, however, the DRC was not convinced by the argument held by the Player,
namely that the award for winning the Iranian Super Cup shall be awarded just on the basis
of the silent reaction by the Club. In particular, the Chamber observed that, as per the same
Player’s admission, (i) said bonus had been allegedly agreed on a verbal way only and (ii)
the Club actually failed to reply to the entire content of the default notice dated 23 May
2023 and not just to the part related to the mentioned bonus.
63. Accordingly, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Player failed to provide actual
evidence of the abovementioned agreement and that his mere allegations were not
enough in order to prove the existence of the alleged outstanding bonus. It accordingly
rejected this request of the Claimant.
64. Moving to the amount of USD 2,800 claimed by the Player as winning-match bonus
stipulated under art. 5.1 of the New Contract, the Chamber noted that the Club alleged
having paid USD 800 to the Player on 20 April 2023 and further EUR 400 on a not specified
date.
65. In this respect, the DRC observed that the Player acknowledged having received the
amount of USD 800 on 20 April 2023 but that he had already deducted it from the sum
demanded in his claim. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, having the Club won 18
matches during the season 2022/2023, the total amount originally due as bonuses for the
said season would be USD 3,600 (i.e. USD 200 x 18), while after the abovementioned
payment by the Club the overall outstanding had allegedly decreased to USD 2,800.
66. In this context, the Chamber also noted that, contrarily to what sustained by the Club, the
Player denied having been paid the further sum of EUR 400.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-10620
67. In particular, the DRC observed that the Player challenged the authenticity of the relevant
payment receipt submitted by the Club, arguing that the latter fabricated it.
68. In support of the above, the Chamber noted that the Player emphasized the different
signature appointed on the mentioned document in addition to the lack of fingerprints and
the adoption of a different currency than the one established under the New Contract.
69. In this respect, the members of the Chamber deemed appropriate to remind the parties
that, as a general rule, 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. After a thorough
analysis of the evidence provided by the parties, in particular, comparing the relevant
signature of the Player on the payment receipt in question with the signature appointed
on the (i) New Contract and the (ii) other payment receipt dated 20 April 2023, the DRC
noted that in both of them the Player stamped his thumb print, while in the document
challenged by the Player said thumb print is absent. Furthermore, the Chamber assessed
that, even for a layman, it appears quite evident the divergency between the signature of
the Player appointed thereto and the one affixed on all the other documents submitted by
the parties.
70. With the foregoing in mind, the Chamber concluded that, in spite of the documentation
produced by the Club, it was not convinced to the required degree of satisfaction that such
documentation was authentic. Consequently, the Chamber unanimously decided to set
aside the mentioned document.
71. Finally, in reference to the Player’s request for reimbursement of the relevant flight tickets,
the Chamber noted that the Player amended his claim and requested only the payment of
the upgrade from Economy to Business class in relation to the flight from Dubai to Sao
Paulo dated 6 June 2023.
72. In this respect, the DRC observed that (i) the Player did not contest that the Club had
already covered all the flight tickets indicated in his claim while the dispute concerns only
the category of two tickets in relation to a single trip, (ii) the Club submitted evidence
regarding all the flight tickets allegedly bought for the Player and his family, and (iii) it is not
possible to ascertain whether the class of the tickets thereto indicated was effectively
Economy or Business.
73. In facts, the members of the Chamber were not able to determine whether the Club had
effectively paid only two Business class tickets - instead of 4 - for the trip from Sao Paulo to
Tehran on 9 July 2022 as alleged by the Player and, in the affirmative, whether the latter
had the right to claim two further Business class tickets in order to “remedy” through the
subsequent trip from Dubai to Sao Paulo on 6 June 2023.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-10620
74. Accordingly, the Chamber determined that the files produced by the Player cannot be
considered as decisive and conclusive documentary evidence, on the basis of which it could
be established that the Club did not comply with its financial obligations as per the New
Contract in line with article 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
75. In light of all the above considerations, the Chamber acknowledged that, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, at the moment of the termination all the claimed
amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the Club, except for the bonus related to the
victory of the Iranian Super Cup and the reimbursement of the flight expenses claimed by
the Player.
76. Nevertheless, in consideration of the significant consistency of the outstanding sums
abovementioned, the DRC ascertained that the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had been fulfilled and the Player had just cause to terminate the New Contract
on 13 June 2023.
ii. Consequences
77. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the
Respondent.
78. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Player, amount to USD 222,512.
79. 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, i.e., USD
222,512.
80. 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
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the date of
effective payment.
81. 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
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-10620
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the
protected period.
82. 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.
83. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player 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.
84. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player 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 580,000 (i.e. the residual value of the New Contract)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
85. 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.
86. In this respect, the DRC noted that the player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the New Contract.
87. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of USD 580,000 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
88. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 14 June 2023 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-10620
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. 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.
93. 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
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-10620
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Raphael da Silva Arruda, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Esteghlal FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
USD 59,712 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2022
until the date of effective payment;
USD 80,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2023
until the date of effective payment;
USD 80,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 March 2023
until the date of effective payment;
USD 2,800 net as outstanding bonuses plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 June 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
USD 580,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 14 June 2023 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. 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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-10620
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. 18