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 31 October 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player E, country G & T as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club M, from country U as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding an employment-related dispute 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 31 October 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player E, country G & T as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club M, from country U as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case Contractual situation 1. On 7 September 2007, Player E, from country G & T (hereinafter: player or Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and Club M, from country U (hereinafter: club or Respondent/Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2008. On 4 March 2008, the parties signed an additional agreement, by means of which they extended the contract until 30 June 2011, whereas all other conditions of the contract remained unchanged. 2. The parties also signed an undated agreement regarding disciplinary sanctions and bonuses (hereinafter: ADSB), which was valid during the term of the contract. 3. Art. 2.1 of the ADSB states that “for honest discharge of the duties, for high level of sport scores, for professional and sport mastery, for individual contribution on attainment by Club M victorious sports results”, the player was entitled to receive: a) USD 300,000, to be paid until 30 June 2008; b) USD 400,000 for the season 2008/09; c) USD 400,000 for the season 2009/10; d) USD 550,000 for the season 2010/11. The ADSB stipulates that payments would be made every month. 4. Pursuant to art. 1.1 of the ADSB, “The football player who decreased his playing qualities and has finished fulfilling his professional duties can be placed on a different salary”. 5. Art. 1.2 of the ADSB stipulates that a player, who sustains an injury during a match or training, is entitled to receive 100% of the bonus for two calendar matches “under main coach’s consideration”. 6. According to art. 3.1 of the contract, the player has to “take part in all games by the decision of the Club and coach team, including the games of the first and second teams and fan-clubs”. 7. Art. 3.3 of the contract stipulates the club’s obligation to “organize full medical service of the Football player, diagnostics, treatment, provide with medicaments, vitamins, in case of necessity to finance the treatment (operation) by the specialists in the territory of country U”. Furthermore, the club is obliged to “administer therapy and diagnostics in abroad in case of lack of necessary equipments of qualified specialists in the territory of country U”. 8. Art. 3.4 of the contract states that the club can transfer the player to the “undermost teams of the Club and decrease the wages”. 9. Art. 4.4 of the contract stipulates that “(…) at any moment the Club may terminate a present contract based on decision of the Club Council of Sport and appropriate order if the Football player doesn’t conform the level of the game in the team (…)”. 10. Art. 4.5 of the contract states the following: “During the validity of the present Contract, in connection with its non-fulfilment by the Football player, as well as the decrease of the sport craftsmanship or loss of the necessary physical form, and also in case of exhibiting the football player to a transfer, the rate of the wages can be changed into the way of decreasing amenably the decision of the Club Council of Sport and in concordance with labour legislation in force of country U.” 11. Art. 6.6 of the contract states that the club may unilaterally terminate the contract at any time and on any basis without having to notify the player. 12. On 9 July 2009, the player terminated the contract with immediate effect (cf. no. I./20 below). Player’s claim 13. On 19 February 2009, amended on 29 May, 20 July and 13 October 2009, the player lodged a claim against the club with FIFA claiming the following amounts plus 5% interest: a) USD 200,000 as single payment due on 30 June 2008 according to art. 2.1 of the ADSB (the player alleged to have received only USD 100,000 out of the USD 300,000); b) USD 45,550 as monthly salaries for November and December 2008 as well as January 2009 (the player allegedly only received USD 18,150 instead of USD 33,333 each month); c) USD 31,300 as monthly salaries for February and March 2009 (the player allegedly only received USD 17,683 each month); d) USD 15,183 as monthly salary for April 2009 (the player allegedly only received USD 18,150 for April); e) USD 16,199.33 as monthly salary for May 2009 (the player allegedly only received USD 17,134 for May); f) USD 15,699 as monthly salary for June 2009 (the player allegedly only received USD 17,634 for June); g) USD 6,450.52 for exchange rate fluctuations; h) USD 26,882 for medical costs (converted from EUR 21,205.81); i) USD 3,000 for accommodation costs for the period from January to June 2009; j) USD 400,000 as compensation for the season 2009/2010; k) USD 550,000 as compensation for the season 2010/2011. The interest at the rate of 5% p.a. is calculated as follows: a) 5% interest on USD 200,000 as of 30 June 2008 (date on which the amount fell due); b) 5% interest on USD 78,575.52 as of 19 February 2009 (date on which the claim was lodged); c) 5% interest on USD 32,607 as of 29 May 2009 (date on which the amendment to the claim was lodged); d) 5% interest on USD 923,987 as of 20 July 2009 (date on which the amendment to the claim was lodged). 14. According to the player, he sustained an injury in May 2008 and thus, with the consent of the club and the team doctor, went to country G in order to get the best treatment. In October 2008, the player returned to the country U, whereupon the coach allegedly told him that he did not want him in the team anymore. The player asserted that the club had refused him the access to the training fields and that the club had not provided him with the training equipment. Furthermore, the player stated that the club’s sport board had decided in a meeting held on 1 November 2008 to assign the player to the club’s second team. 15. The player stated that the club arbitrarily reduced his monthly salary of USD 33,333.33 as of November 2008 by USD 15,183.33 each month from November 2008 to January 2009, by USD 15,650 each month from February to March 2009, by USD 15,183 in April 2009, by 16,199.33 in May 2009 and by 15,699.33 in June. 16. The player alleged that the club had based the reductions on the aforementioned decision taken by the club’s sport board. The player refuted said decision since the sport board inaccurately quoted provisions of the ADSB and since it is unlawful to reduce the player’s salary because of his performance. The player also contested the validity of the quoted provisions. In addition, the player stated that the medical service head of Club M had confirmed that his insufficient performance was caused by his injury. 17. The player sent two default notices dated 5 December 2008 and 27 January 2009 to the club, by means of which he contested the salary reductions by the club and asked the club to pay the outstanding amounts of USD 200,000 and USD 263,619, respectively. 18. Furthermore, the player asserted that the club had made some payments in currency of country U instead of USD. This allegedly caused exchange rate fluctuations. 19. Moreover, the player held that the club had not complied with its obligations according to art. 3.3 of the contract. Thus, the player himself had to pay for the medical treatments and rehabilitation measures conducted in country G from May to September 2008. 20. On 9 July 2009, the player sent a letter to the club in which he terminated the contract with immediate effect. In the letter, the player stated that the club had breached the contract several times, i.e. the club did not organise the medical service for the player, it failed to support him after his rehabilitation, it excluded him from the training with the professional team, it refused him the access to the training fields and it did not provide him with the training equipment. 21. However, the player was of the opinion that the club had already terminated the contract without just cause by having breached the contract constantly. Club’s reply and counterclaim 22. On 5 May 2009, amended on 19 January 2010, the club submitted its reply rejecting all the requests of the player. 23. The club asked FIFA to determine that the contract had been terminated without any right for compensation for both parties as of 1 May 2009, since the player repeatedly breached the contract and the ADSB. The club further stated that certainly and at the latest, the contract had been terminated by the termination letter of the player dated 9 July 2009. 24. As regards the player’s request for the payment of USD 200,000, the club argued that the amount of USD 300,000 under art. 2.1 of the ADSB was considered to be rewarded in case the conditions of said article had been fulfilled (“individual contribution on attainment by Club M victorious sports results”). Thus, according to the club, the amount of USD 300,000 is not an absolute salary, but is conditional on the player’s individual contribution and performance for the club. Since the player sustained an injury on 3 May 2008, he was not able to contribute to the club’s success. The club states that, despite the player’s injury, the club by courtesy paid him USD 100,000 according to art. 2.1 of the ADSB. 25. With regard to the player’s monthly salary, the club claimed to have paid the amount as follows: “USD 3,000 non-cash on the bank card in the country U bank; USD 30,300 non-cash on the bank card in the country T bank (by the request of the player)”. 26. As to the salary reductions, the club stated that wages could be reduced according to art. 1.1 of the ADSB as well as art. 3.4 and art. 4.5 of the contract. The club argued that, as of 3 May 2008, the player had not played for the first or second team and had refused to participate in the individual training prepared by the coach, hence, the club’s sport board took a decision on 1 November 2008, by means of which it reduced the player’s salary and transferred him to the second team. The club asserted that its decision to reduce the player’s salary by 50% does not contradict country U or international legislation. The club further held that, according to art. 6.6 of the contract, the club would have even been entitled to terminate the contract at any time since the player did not perform well due to his injury. 27. Regarding the medical treatment of the player’s injury, the club referred to art. 3.3 of the contract which stipulates the club’s obligation to pay for the medical service “in the territory of country U”. The club argued that the medical service would have been paid only if it had been conducted in country U. The club further stated that the player had refused to have the surgery and the treatment in country U and that he had gone to country G without the consent of the club. The club alleged that there was no need for a surgery in country G and that the medical treatment could have been successfully provided in the country U. Moreover, the club alleged that the treatment in country G had even aggravated the player’s recovery of the injury. The club further stated that the player had not complied with art. 3.1 par. 7 of the contract, according to which, in case of an injury, the player must inform the club’s medical service and follow the directions of the specialists of the club. 28. With regard to the exchange rate fluctuations, the club rejected the player’s pertinent claim, arguing that the club had already accounted the fluctuation and that the contract did not stipulate any compensation because of value fluctuation of the national or foreign currency. 29. According to the club, the player had not attended the club’s training on 13 July 2009 and that he had left the club without permission on 13 July 2009 and that it had no information regarding the player’s whereabouts. 30. On 19 January 2010, the club filed a counterclaim against the player claiming the following: a) USD 300 as a fine for each training session the player missed according to art. 1.4 of the ADSB (“For coming late to training or any official event, conducted by the Club, the penalty is 300$.”); b) sporting sanctions of four months for the player due to his unilateral breach of contract; c) compensation for breach of contract of the whole remaining amount of his salaries as of the date of his departure on 9 July 2009; d) compensation for the club’s sporting loss due to the breach of contract by the player; e) compensation for the club’s sporting loss due to the player’s failure to train; f) reimburse all salaries paid to the player after the date the player missed his first training session; g) compensation for self-inflicted injury, which the player aggravated by seeking medical treatment in another territory. 31. The club stated that the player had refused to attend the individual training provided by the club’s coach without giving any valid reasons. The club is of the opinion that the player breached the contract since he missed several trainings and left the club without a prior notice. Furthermore, the club held that the player had not presented any evidence that he had been mistreated and banned from the trainings by the club. In addition, according to the club, the player brought disrepute upon the club by “discussing his solo training regime with people outside the realm of the Club”. Finally, the club stated that the present matter should be decided in accordance with country U law, which allegedly allows salary reductions and the premature termination of contracts. Player’s replica and position on the club’s counterclaim 32. Referring to art. 1.2 of the ADSB, the player stated that it was unlawful to reduce the player’s salary due to his injury. 33. As regards his request for the payment of USD 200,000, the player stressed that the amount of USD 300,000 in the contract should be regarded as a “signing fee” and that the reduction of the player’s salary by 50% was decided on 1 November 2008 for the period as from this date, however, the amount of USD 300,000 was to be paid by 30 June 2008. 34. Moreover, the player contested the club’s allegation that the medical treatment in country G had prolonged the healing procedure and emphasized that he went to country G for the treatment of his injury following the club doctor’s advice. 35. The player further stated that only after the club had not needed him anymore due to some changes in the team, the club started to bully and even threaten the player and refused him to participate in the training. Referring to the training plans presented by the club, the player asserted that he could not participate in the trainings since the club did not provide him with the required equipment. The player further stated that after his injury, he had tried everything to recover and to reintegrate into the team as fast as possible. Club’s duplica 36. In its duplica, the club stated that the player had not presented any evidence which shows that the club’s team doctor advised or allowed him to go to country G for the treatment of his injury. Further, the club merely reiterated its previous argumentation. 37. On 7 August 2009, the player and Club O, from country H., signed an employment contract valid as from 7 August 2009 until 30 June 2010. According to this contract, the player was entitled to receive EUR 50,000 for the season 2009/2010. 38. On 31 January 2011, the player and Club F, form country H, signed an employment contract valid as from 31 January 2011 until 30 June 2012. According to this contract, the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 850. In addition, the player was entitled to receive a Christmas bonus of one monthly salary, an Easter bonus of half a monthly salary and a “holiday benefit” of half a monthly salary. According to the appendix to said contract, the player was entitled to receive EUR 63,000, to be paid in nine unequal instalments as from 28 February 2011 until 30 April 2012. EUR 15,000 out of the total amount of EUR 63,000 was to be paid before June 2011. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. 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 submitted to FIFA on 19 February 2009. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) 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 country G/country T player and an country U club. 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 19 February 2009, the 2008 edition of the said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the Chamber started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that on 7 September 2007, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract setting out a period of validity as from the date of signature until 30 June 2008. The Chamber further acknowledged that on 4 March 2008, the parties extended said contract until 30 June 2011. The Chamber held that according to the ADSB signed by and between the parties in addition to the contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive USD 300,000, to be paid by 30 June 2008; USD 400,000 for the 2008/2009 season; USD 400,000 for the 2009/2010 season and USD 550,000 for the 2010/2011 season. 6. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract on 9 July 2009 by having failed to remit his remuneration as of June 2008, by not having organised the medical service for him, by having failed to support him after his rehabilitation, by having excluded him from the training with the professional team and by not having provided him with training equipment. 7. In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s default notices dated 5 December 2008 and 27 January 2009 addressed to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, by means of which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asked the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to pay the outstanding amounts of USD 200,000 and USD 263,619, respectively. The DRC also noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had sent a letter dated 9 July 2009 to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant by means of which he terminated the contract with immediate effect referring to the above-mentioned reasons (cf. no II./6 above). However, the Chamber noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was of the opinion that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had terminated the contract already before by having breached the contract constantly. 8. Equally, the DRC noted that according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, who fully rejects the claim put forward by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the player is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract since he repeatedly breached the contract and the ADSB (hereinafter together also referred to as contracts). The Chamber took note of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s specification and allegation that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had gone to country G for the treatment of his injury without the consent of the club, had missed several trainings, had not participated in the individual training prepared by the coach and had left the club on 13 July 2009. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was of the opinion that the contract had been terminated by the player through his termination letter dated 9 July 2009 at the latest. 9. Having established the above, the Chamber went on to analyse as to when the contractual relation between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had been terminated. In this regard, the DRC held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent sent a termination letter to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 9 July 2009 invoking just cause on the basis of the alleged breach by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of its contractual obligations. Equally, the Chamber held that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant considered the contracts to be terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent without just cause on 9 July 2009 at the latest. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the contractual relation between the parties to the present dispute had been terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by means of his notice of termination dated 9 July 2009. 10. Consequently, the Chamber established that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine whether the contracts had been terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with or without just cause and which are the consequences thereof. 11. In doing so, the Chamber took into account that, according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, USD 200,000 out of the USD 300,000, due on 30 June 2008, as well as parts of his salaries as from November 2008 until June 2009 amounting to USD 123,931 had remained unpaid. The DRC further noted that the club’s sport board took a decision on 1 November 2008, by means of which it reduced the player’s salary making reference to clauses in the contract and the ADSB related to the player’s performance and injury. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has not contested the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s allegation that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not made the aforementioned payments to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. The Chamber further noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant even acknowledged having made salary reductions in accordance with the contracts and the decision of the sport board. 12. Having established the above, the Chamber went on to analyse whether the Respondent/Counter-Claimant could validly reduce the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s salary according to the contract and the ADSB. The Chamber noted that the player had contested the salary reductions by the club through his default notice dated 27 January 2009 and his claim in front of FIFA lodged on 19 February 2009. The Chamber held that all the clauses in the contract and the ADSB, to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant refers in its decision dated 1 November 2008, correspond to the possibility of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to reduce the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s salary due to insufficient performance. In addition, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the clauses do not even specify to which extent (i.e. specification of amount or percentage) the player’s salary may be reduced. Hence, due to the unilateral and arbitrary character of such clauses and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided that these clauses in the contract and the ADSB are not valid and, therefore, cannot be taken into account or validly invoked as a reason for the non-payment of the player’s remuneration. As regards the single payment in the amount of USD 300,000, which fell due on 30 June 2008, and USD 200,000 out of which are claimed to be outstanding, the Chamber considered the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s argument, according to which this payment was conditional on the player’s individual contribution and performance for the club, to be without merit as well. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that the USD 300,000 had fallen due as early as on 30 June 2008 and were related to the previous season. 13. For these reasons, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s arguments related to the non-payment of the player’s remuneration could not be upheld. In addition, the members of the Chamber, on account of the above, established that at the time of the termination of the contracts by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of USD 200,000 relating to the 2007/2008 season and the amount of USD 123,931 in connection with the unjustified reduction of the player’s salary as from November 2008 until June 2009 remained outstanding. 14. For the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the club’s decision dated 1 November 2008 does not include any reference to the medical treatment that the player apparently underwent in country G and his apparent absence in connection therewith, subsequent to his injury in May 2008. 15. On account of all of the above, the Chamber concurred that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contracts on 9 July 2009 and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the contracts by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with just cause. 16. Having established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. 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 in addition to the outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant contracts. 17. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s financial claim, which includes the aforementioned outstanding remuneration of USD 200,000, which had fallen due on 30 June 2008, and USD 123,931 relating to the remainder of the monthly remuneration as of November 2008 until June 2009 in accordance with the ADSB. The members of the Chamber recalled that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not contested that these amounts remained unpaid invoking its alleged right to reduce the player’s remuneration due to his performance, which argument, as stated above, was dismissed. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asks to be awarded payment of exchange rate fluctuations in the total of USD 6,450 as well as accommodation amounting to USD 3,000. The Chamber noted, however, that the contract and the ADSB do not include any clauses according to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was obliged to pay exchange rate fluctuations and accommodation costs to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim for payment of exchange rate fluctuations and accommodation costs could not be upheld. As regards the amount of USD 26,882 relating to medical costs incurred in country G, the DRC noted that art. 3.3 of the contract stipulates that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is obliged to pay the treatment of the player’s injury “in the territory of country U” only, unless a treatment in the country U is not possible for lack of equipment or qualified specialists. Referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not provide any evidence for the necessity of the player’s surgery to be conducted in country G nor that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had undertaken to cover medical costs incurred by the player in country G. Hence, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim regarding the medical costs. 18. Consequently, taking into account the documentation remitted by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to substantiate his claim and the fact that the contracts were considered terminated as of 9 July 2009, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of USD 200,000 relating to the 2007/2008 season as well as USD 123,931 as outstanding salaries for November 2008 to June 2009 in accordance with the contract and the ADSB. 19. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 200,000 as of 1 July 2008, since this payment was due on 30 June 2008, and interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 123,931 as of 20 July 2009, as this was the date on which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent made his corresponding amendment to the claim. 20. In continuation, the Chamber focussed its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract 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 Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 21. 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 contracts at the basis of the matter at stake. 22. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from July 2009 until 30 June 2011, i.e. the date on which the contracts were set to expire, taking into account that the player’s remuneration until June 2009 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration (cf. no. II./17. above). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 950,000 (i.e. salary for the season 2009/2010 and the season 2010/2011) serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 23. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber, 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. 24. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had concluded employment contracts with Club O, from country H, for the period as from 7 August 2009 until 30 June 2010 and with Club F, from country H, for the period as from 31 January 2011 until 30 June 2012, enabling the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to reduce his loss of income. In particular, the members of the Chamber took into account that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had received the amount of USD 95,573 from his new employers covering the period of time until 30 June 2011 on the basis of the new employment contracts. 25. The Chamber further took into account that the player had not demonstrated that he was willing to play for the club’s second team. In addition, the Chamber noted that the dispute between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant relates to a period of time during which the player was not or less able to play football. 26. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of USD 650,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract. 27. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s petition and the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation, as from 31 October 2013 until the date of effective payment. 28. In continuation, the DRC established that any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. 29. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player E, is partially accepted. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club M, is rejected. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 323,931 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2008 on the amount of USD 200,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 20 July 2009 on the amount of USD 123,931. 4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 650,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 October 2013 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 3. and 4. are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. 7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is 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