F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 December 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country S as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the player, Player V, from country B as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club, Club F, from country B as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 December 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the club, Club M, from country S as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the player, Player V, from country B as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club, Club F, from country B as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 August 2010, the player from country B, Player V (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant), and Club M, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 31 August 2010 until 30 June 2012. 2. According to art. II par. 1 of the employment contract, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent undertakes to pay the Respondent/Counter-Claimant a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 7,000, as from 31 August 2010. 3. Article III of the contract in fine stipulates that the “Contractual parties agreed that if the player violates the obligations arising from the contract that are not sanctioned by the contract, the club has the right to use the sanctions states in the ‘Rules of Behaviour of the Professional Football Player of Club M. The club has inter alia the right to decrease the basic monthly salary, stated in art. II of this contract to aliquot part, in case of unexcused non-participation of the player in activities stated in the art. III of this contract”. 4. On 16 March 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract without just cause, on 10 March 2011. In this context, the club requests the total amount of EUR 330,545, plus interests of 5% p.a., made up of: - EUR 204,545 of non-amortized transfer compensation; - EUR 126,000 corresponding to the remaining value of the contract. 5. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter- Claimant did not resume his sporting activities after the winter break, from 10 December 2010 until 4 January 2011. 6. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided a copy of the two warnings sent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 7 January 2011 and 4 February 2011, by means of which the latter was warned about his situation of non-compliance with the employment contract. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant was requested to return immediately to the club and informed that the Claimant/Counter- Respondent shall seek the application of disciplinary measures against him before FIFA. The aforementioned correspondence allegedly remained unanswered. 7. On 10 March 2011, a meeting was allegedly held between the Claimant/Counter- Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, during which the latter expressed his wish to terminate the employment contract, alleging personal reasons. 8. In his response, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejects the Claimant/Counter- Respondent’s arguments, according to which he abandoned his activities with the club without previous notice. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant states having been authorised by the president and the coach of Club M to find a new club, after the poor results of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the Champions League. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided a copy of the authorisations issued by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, dated 18 January 2011 and 8 February 2011. 9. Alas, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not successful in his search for a new club and decided to return to Club M. The country S club, however, had allegedly no interest in keeping the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and, not only was he not accepted back, but allegedly also banned from training. 10. On 15 March 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant sent a letter to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, by means of which he requested to be allowed to participate in training as well as the payment of his salaries for the past three months. Should the Claimant/Counter-Respondent refuse to comply with such requests, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requests an amicable termination of the contract. 11. In its letter dated 18 March 2011, provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reminds the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the previous warnings sent to him and the financial consequences of his absence from training; moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent informs the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that the termination of the contract - deemed premature and unilateral - is only possible after the payment of a compensation in the amount of EUR 330,545 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Club M further states that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had been previously warned about the existence of outstanding debts regarding income taxes and the compulsory health insurance, for the period of 1 February 2007 to 5 July 2009, during which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was previously registered with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that those amounts were paid to the relevant authorities on his behalf, as per his alleged authorisation. Enclosed to the letter is a statement from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, listing the salaries that have been paid to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the relevant tax deductions. 12. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant considers the compensation requested by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as abusive and requests, by means of a counterclaim, the payment of outstanding salaries in the total amount of EUR 22,753.25, made up of: - EUR 4,290.86 as reimbursement of the amount deducted from his salary of November 2010, as an alleged debt towards the health insurance; - EUR 4,462.39 as reimbursement of the amount deducted from his salary of December 2010, as an alleged debt towards the health insurance; - EUR 7,000, corresponding to his salary of January 2011; - EUR 7,000, corresponding to his salary of February 2011. 13. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent in its replica confirms that it had the intention of selling the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to another club, but points out that this possibility arose only after the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to resume his activities with the club on 5 January 2011 (cf. point I.9. above). On 7 January 2011 the Claimant/Counter-Respondent warned the Respondent/Counter-Claimant about the consequences of his absence and on 12 January 2011 it was contacted by a Mr G, who claimed that he would be able to find the Respondent/Counter- Claimant a new club. Assuming that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not interested in maintaining his employment with Club M, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent issued the authorisation dated 18 January 2011. As Club M was informed that there were several clubs interested in the Respondent/Counter- Claimant, it issued another authorisation dated 8 February 2011 valid until 15 February 2011. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent however points out that, in the e-mail to which such authorisation was attached, it emphasised that “[…] this authorization shall not be used as an excuse for non-participation of Player V in the club activities and obligations arising from his contract with Club Z under any circumstances”. As no concrete offer was made to Club Z, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent tried itself to find the Respondent/Counter-Claimant a new club in country F, on 9 March 2011; however, according to the Claimant/Counter- Respondent, no club was willing to hire a player with disciplinary problems. 14. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent insists that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only returned to the club on 10 March 2011. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejects the accusations of having excluded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant from training and refers, in this regard, to its letters dated 7 January 2011 and 4 February 2011 (cf. point I.6. above), requesting the Respondent/Counter- Claimant’s return. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the contract was terminated upon request of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 15. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims to have the right to reduce the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s salary on a pro rata basis in case of unexcused absences, as per art. III of the contract (cf. point I.3. above), which outlines the obligations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the possibility for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to reduce his salary in case of breach. Since the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has not provided his services to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent since January 2011, his salaries for January and February 2011 are not due. Moreover, by means of its letter dated 6 April 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that any person living in the Republic of country S is obliged to pay for the public health insurance, as per Act. No 580/2004. In this regard, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent provided copies of the following documents: “application forms of insured person for the compulsory health insurance” dated 12 February 2007 and 31 August 2010 signed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, bank statement dated 15 December 2010, not translated, assigning the amounts of EUR 4,290.86 and EUR 4,462.39 to Player V and partially translated confirmation from the insurance company of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s account number as indicated in the bank statement. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims having no outstanding amounts towards the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 16. In his duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the Claimant/Counter- Respondent was no longer interested in his services, but only in obtaining financial compensation from his transfer. Furthermore, he claims that the amount deducted from his salaries as health insurance contribution was never used for his benefit, but probably for that of the entire team. The Respondent/Counter- Claimant claims the total amount of EUR 8,735.25 was deducted from his salaries and requests its reimbursement. 17. Finally the Respondent/Counter-Claimant states that, as he returned to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in January 2011, he was told that he would be transferred and could no longer play with the first team. His request to play with the second team was allegedly also refused without explanation. 18. In its response to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s duplica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insists that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant abandoned the club without just cause and within the protected period. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further states that the deductions in the amounts of EUR 4,290.86 on 15 December 2010 and EUR 4,462.39 on 31 January 2011 consisted of a mandatory contribution to the general insurance health company. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided a copy of a statement of the general insurance health company dated 15 November 2012 and confirming the payment of such amounts for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 19. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insists that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant left the club in December 2010, without having issued any warning to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent regarding the amounts he claims were illegally deducted from his income. The Claimant/Counter- Respondent deems that, even if such deductions are considered by FIFA as not due, this would not constitute a just cause for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to terminate the contract. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent insists on having requested the return of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to Club M, however, without success. During the period of his unjustified absence, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is not entitled to any salaries. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim should be entirely accepted. 20. In his final position, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejects the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s arguments and insists on the fact that the amount of approximately EUR 9,000 was not paid to his own insurance account, but on behalf of the entire club. In addition, he claims that from the documentation provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in this regard, it appears that his name has been included subsequently by hand. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant also claims that such amount does not appear realistic for a 6-month insurance. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that “it is completely normal that the company they work with for years did something like that for their important client”. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant equally rejects the argument that he voluntarily decided to leave the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 21. After a 6-month pause, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims having returned to country B and been registered with Club F. Then, on 1 January 2012, he signed a contract with the Club O, from country C. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegedly lost his status of a national team player, was forced to play for lower- ranked teams and has seen his value in the football market considerably diminish. 22. In its final position, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the insurance company to which the amount indicated has been paid is not a private company, but a State institution. The amount paid does not correspond to 6 months only, as the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims, but to the total amount due for the period of 1 February 2007 to 5 July 2009. 23. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that, even if the deductions are considered unjustified, this does not allow the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to unilaterally terminate the contract with just cause. In addition, even if the Respondent/Counter-Claimant considers that his salaries were not paid on time, he does not have a just cause to terminate the contract, since he did not put the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in arrears prior to the termination. Nevertheless, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insists on the fact that all of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s salaries were paid on time and it was the Respondent/Counter-Claimant who did not return to Club M for the second half of the 2010/2011 season, alleging “family issues, problematic relationship with teammates and a coach, substitution during one of the Champions League matches, etc”. 24. Thus, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintains its original claim and claims that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s new club, Club F (hereinafter: the Intervening Party), should be held jointly liable for the payment of compensation. 25. In its position, Club F does not submit any comments on the present affair, but merely mentions having a dispute of its own against the Respondent/Counter- Claimant, ruled by the Commission on the Status of Players and Clubs of the Football Association of country S. 26. According to the information contained in TMS, after the alleged breach, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was employed with the following clubs: - Club F , from 6 June 2011 to 5 June 2014, for an unknown amount of remuneration; - Club O , from 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2014, for a monthly salary of currency of country C 60,000 (EUR 2,350). II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 March 2011. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2008 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012; hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a country S club, a country B player and a country B club, with an international dimension. 3. Furthermore, 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 par. 2 of the Regulations (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 March 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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. 5. In this respect, the members of the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 31 August 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2012, in accordance with which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 7,000. 6. The DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that, in order for the player to possibly find a new club, it issued two authorisations, on 18 January 2011 and on 8 February 2011, allowing the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s search for new employment, while reminding him that said authorisations did not exempt him from his obligation to participate in the club’s activities. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to return to the club after the end of the Christmas holidays on 5 January 2011 as well as after the expiry of the authorisations, in spite of the warnings sent to him on 7 January 2011 and 4 February 2011. Additionally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insists that it was never put in arrears by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant with regard to payments he alleged being outstanding. Thus, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached the contract without just cause and consequently requests the payment of compensation in the total amount of EUR 330,545, for which Club F should be held jointly and severally liable. 7. The Chamber further noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent/Counter- Claimant claims having been authorised by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to search for new employment, after the poor results of Club M in the Champions League. Alas, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims not having been successful in his search for a new club. He equally claims to have been prohibited to train with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and not to have received his salary for January and February 2011. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that the amount of EUR 8,753.25, allegedly regarding income taxes and compulsory health insurance, was illegally deducted from his salary of November and December 2010. 8. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, on 15 March 2011 the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested either to be readmitted to the club and to be paid his outstanding remuneration or for the contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to be amicably terminated. On 18 March 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent answered the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s letter, by reminding him of the financial consequences of his non-compliance with the warnings previously addressed to him and claiming that a premature termination is only possible upon the payment of compensation to Club M, which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant refused. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was no longer interested in his services, but only in obtaining financial advantage from his transfer. Thus, he deems that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim should be entirely rejected and lodges a counterclaim against it for the payment of outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 22,753.25. 10. Finally, the DRC noted that the Intervening Party did not submit any comments as to the substance of the present affair. 11. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in the present dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant/Counter- Respondent, the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the allegations of both parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by either of the parties. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract had been breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract. 12. In view of the above, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to shortly recall the timeline of events in the present matter according to the documentary evidence provided by either party as well as the respective allegations which have remained uncontested by the opposing party. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, on 31 August 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter- Claimant signed an employment contract, valid until 30 June 2012. On 5 January 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to return from his winter holidays and, thus, on 7 January 2011 the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested his return in writing. On 18 January 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent authorised the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to search for a new club. On 4 February 2011, in view of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s failure to return to Club M after the authorised search for new employment, the Claimant/Counter- Respondent issued a warning of potential breach of contract, requesting the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s return to the club. On 8 February 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent issued another authorisation for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to find a new club, valid until 15 February, while reminding him via e-mail that “[…] this authorization shall not be used as an excuse for non-participation of Player V in the club activities and obligations arising from his contract with Club M under any circumstances”. On 9 March 2011, the negotiations with a potential new employer for the Respondent/Counter- Claimant failed. On 10 March 2011, a meeting was apparently held between the parties. On 15 March 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested from Club M the payment of his outstanding remuneration and his re-admission to training - from which he had allegedly been excluded - or the amicable termination of the contract. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent responded on 18 March 2011, claiming that the amicable termination of the contract would only be possible upon the payment of compensation to Club M. 13. In view of the foregoing sequel of events, the Chamber observed that in spite of having been temporarily authorised to search for new employment, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has failed to resume his activities with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on three different occasions, i.e. on 5 January 2011 after the end of his holidays, on 4 February 2011 after the Respondent/Counter- Claimant requested his return, and on 16 February 2011 after the expiry of the authorisation dated 8 February 2011. 14. In addition, the Dispute Resolution Chamber took note of the content of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s e-mail which accompanied the last authorisation, according to which it said authorisation “[…] shall not be used as an excuse for non-participation of Player V in the club activities and obligations arising from his contract with Club M under any circumstances”. 15. At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 16. Bearing in mind the aforementioned principle, the Chamber observed that, on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided consistent evidence of the fact that, in spite of the fact that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was authorised to search for new employment, he had been informed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent that he still had to comply with the employment contract and exercise his professional activities with Club M. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent equally provided evidence of the fact that, on two occasions, it requested the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to resume his activities with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, by means of its reminders dated 7 January 2011 and 4 February 2011. 17. On the other hand, the members of the DRC firstly pointed out that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had failed to submit any kind of evidence in relation to his exclusion from training and only contacted the club in connection thereto as well as alleged outstanding remuneration on 15 March 2011 (cf. point I.10. above). In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that by then, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had already failed to return to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on three occasions, as detailed in point II.13. above. 18. Therefore, based on the aforementioned facts, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was to be held responsible for the breach of contract without just cause and that, consequently, the contract should be considered as terminated by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in March 2011. 19. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of the breach of contract without just cause on the part of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract. 20. Prior to establishing the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the DRC deemed it appropriate to consider the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim for outstanding remuneration, as detailed in point I.12. above, and occasionally proceed with the calculation of any outstanding monies payable to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant under the terms of the employment contract until the date of termination, i.e. until March 2011. 21. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to pay his remuneration for the months of January and February 2011 in the total amount of EUR 14,000 and that the amount of EUR 8,753.25 was unlawfully deducted by the Claimant/Counter- Respondent from his remuneration for November and December 2010, due to the allegedly mandatory payment of health insurance. 22. Subsequently, the Chamber took note of the allegations of the Claimant/Counter- Respondent. In this regard, the DRC noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent invokes the application of art. III of the contract, according to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had “the right to decrease the basic monthly salary, stated in art. II of this contract to aliquot part, in case of unexcused non- participation of the player in activities stated in the art. III of this contract”. As the Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegedly did not participate in the activities of the club as from January 2011, he would not be entitled to receive his remuneration for the requested period. In addition, the members of the DRC noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems that the amount of EUR 8,753.25 - which related to the amounts due for the period of February 2007 to July 2009 when the player was registered with the club under a previous contract - was duly deducted from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s salary, since the payment of health insurance in country S is mandatory. 23. The Chamber first focused its attention on the content of art. III of the contract, the reference to which constituted the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s only argument in order to justify the non-payment of the Respondent/Counter- Claimant’s remuneration for January and February 2011. At this point, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to analyse the question of whether such clause inserted in an employment contract could be considered valid. In this regard, the Chamber deemed that the application of the above-mentioned rule was arbitrary, since it entitled the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to reduce the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s remuneration unilaterally and based on nonobjective criteria, leading to an unjustified disadvantage to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s financial rights. 24. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber was of the opinion that art. III of the contract invoked by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in order to justify the non- payment of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s remuneration for January and February 2011 - a period during which it had authorised the Respondent/Counter- Claimant’s search for new employment and, thus, be partially absent - was not applicable and that, consequently, its respective argumentation could not be upheld by the DRC. 25. The DRC then proceeded to analyse the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim for reimbursement of EUR 8,753.25 made by the Claimant/Counter-Claimant from the salary for November and December 2010. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the contract signed between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and Respondent/Counter-Claimant does not contain any stipulation regarding the deduction of health insurance costs from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s remuneration. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Claimant/Counter- Respondent failed to provide a copy of the Act. No 580/2004, based on which it justifies its obligation to deduct the aforementioned amounts from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s remuneration. Thus, the DRC concluded that the aforementioned argument of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent could not be sustained, since there is no evidence that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to deduct amounts from their employees’ wages in order to set-off their alleged debts towards State authorities in country S. For the sake of good order, the members of the Chamber further gave their attention to the documentation submitted by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and, in this regard, they noted that the documentary evidence provided did not corroborate the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s argument that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had debts related to his health insurance. 26. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent does not dispute having failed to pay the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s remuneration of January and February 2011 or having deducted the amount of EUR 8,753.25 from his remuneration for November and December 2010. 27. Taking into consideration the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim as well as the reasons previously exposed, the DRC concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent must fulfill its financial obligations as per the employment contract concluded with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding remuneration due to the latter in the total amount of EUR 22,753.25. 28. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract payable by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of 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 Respondent/Counter- Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the club (amortised over the term of the contract) and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 29. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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. 30. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant under the terms of both the employment contract signed with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, i.e. Club M, and the contracts subsequently signed with Club F and Club O, as detailed in point I.26. above. 31. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, as per the employment contract signed with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 7,000. Furthermore, the members of the DRC observed that said contract was to run for 16 months more after the breach of contract occurred in March 2011. 32. In continuation, the Chamber established that, since it was not in possession of the information concerning the amount of remuneration earned by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant with Club F for the months of March 2011, i.e. the date of the termination of the contract with Club M, to December 2011, it would take into account the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s remuneration with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the calculation of compensation, amounting to EUR 70,000. 33. For the period of January to June 2012, the Chamber decided to take into account the average between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s salary with Club O, i.e. EUR 2,350, and his salary with Club M, i.e. EUR 7,000, and concluded that the average remuneration of EUR 28,000 for the aforementioned period should also be taken into account for the calculation of compensation. 34. In continuation, the members of the Chamber observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent submitted a copy of the transfer agreement signed with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s former club in order to acquire the player’s services, according to which transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 250,000 was paid. Taking into account the residual period of the contract, the DRC established that the non-amortized transfer compensation, amounting to approximately EUR 180,000, shall also be included in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant/Counter- Respondent, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 35. Thus, based on the aforementioned, the Chamber decided that the total amount of EUR 280,000 would serve as the basis for the calculation of the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 36. At this point, the members of the Chamber agreed that, given the particularities of the matter at hand, attenuating circumstances are applicable in order to reduce the amount of compensation due to Club M. In particular, the Chamber wished to consider the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent appeared to be no longer interested in the services of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, as it does not dispute the fact that it was willing to transfer him to another club. In addition, the Chamber noted that, as the Respondent/Counter-Claimant proposed the amicable termination of the contract on 15 March 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent declared it would only accept it in exchange of the payment of compensation. The DRC further pointed out that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not explicitly request the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s return after the failure of the negotiations with the Finish club and failed to pay his salaries for the months of January and February 2011. 37. Thus, in view of the aforementioned circumstances, the Chamber decided to reduce the amount of EUR 280,000 by one-third, and established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant should pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 186,819 as compensation for breach of contract. 38. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Intervening Party, Club F, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount of compensation. 39. In conclusion, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant/Counter- Respondent is partially accepted, that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to Club M compensation in the amount of EUR 186,819, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 December 2013 until the date of effective payment and that Club F shall be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount. 40. In addition, the Chamber decided that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is accepted and that the Claimant/Counter- Respondent is ordered to pay him outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 22,753.25. ** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club M, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Player V, is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club M, compensation in the amount of EUR 186,819 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 December 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. The Intervening Party, Club F, shall be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount. 4. If the aforementioned amount plus interest is not paid within the above- mentioned time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club M, are rejected. 6. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Player V, is accepted. 7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club M, is ordered to pay to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Player V, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 22,753.25 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. If said amount is not paid within the stated time limit, an interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply on said amount as of expiry of the above-mentioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 8. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club M, and Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Player V, are directed to inform one another, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives