F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the club, Club Z, from country S as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player J, from country P as Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club U, from country P as Respondent II regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the club, Club Z, from country S as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player J, from country P as Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club U, from country P as Respondent II regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 21 August 2011, the player J from country P (hereinafter: the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant), born on 9 June 1993, and the club from country S, Club Z (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 23 August 2011 until 31 May 2015. 2. According to art. 2 par. 1 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent undertakes to pay the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 3,400, as from 22 August 2011. 3. Moreover, art. 5 par. 2 of the contract indicates that in case the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant fails to meet the obligations arising from the contract as well as in case of weak and reckless performances, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has the right to: i. “decrease the basic monthly salary after the written notice from the Club, ii. decrease the basic monthly salary up to 50% for the breach of conditions stated in the article III of the contract (…)”. 4. Furthermore, art. 6 par. 11 indicates that “regardless the previous termination clauses, at any time during the length of his contract, regardless protected or non-protected period and/or in or out of the transfers windows, the Player and/or a club interested in his professional services as football player can terminate the present employment contract and fully recover his federative and registration rights and his right to sign a new employment contract with a new club, by paying the amount of 2.000.000,- EUR two million EUR) to the account of the Club stated in the Contract (…)”. 5. On the same date, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed a financial agreement, containing several conditional bonuses which the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was to receive depending on participation in matches and goals scored. 6. On 26 September 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was requested by the Football Federation from country P to release the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant as of 7 October 2012 until 16 October 2012 in order to prepare the upcoming U-20 Championship. Such request was accepted by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant then returned to country S on 16 November 2012. 7. In December 2012, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was called-up to participate in the U-20 Championship held in country A. On this occasion, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent agreed to release the Respondent I / Counter- Claimant from 4 December 2012 until 7 February 2013. After the end of the competition, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant never returned the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 8. On 26 February 2013, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant put the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in default, giving the latter two days to comply with its obligations. In particular, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant reproached the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for not providing him medical support in spite of having been informed of his mental disorder in January 2012 and for reducing his wage excessively. 9. On 28 February 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent replied to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s default notice, rejecting all his assertions. Regarding the decision to reduce the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s wages, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that it was taken as a disciplinary sanction in accordance with the contract due to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s unexcused absence between 17 October 2012 and 16 November 2012. As to the alleged lack of medical support, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent pointed out that it was informed of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s medical condition on 28 November 2012 when it was provided with a medical report issued by a Dr G. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent highlighted that it did not propose a specific medical treatment because in a letter dated 20 November 2012, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant stated that “now in country S I will continue this treatment with Psycologie Doctor G”. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent outlined that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s failure to return on time on two occasions could constitute a breach of contract. Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent invited the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to a meeting in order to discuss the issue. 10. On 4 March 2013, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, with reference to the arguments put forward in the letter dated 26 February 2012, notified the termination of the contract to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 11. On 12 March 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract without just cause. In this respect, and on the basis of art. 6 par. 11 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requests to be awarded with the total amount of EUR 2,000,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 4 March 2013, date on which the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also requested FIFA to condemn the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to bear the legal costs. 12. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, from the very outset of the contractual relationship, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant never settled down, causing unrest with his head coaches, team staff and colleagues. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that an emergency meeting took place between the parties on 24 February 2012. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stresses that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant had not complained of depression during the meeting and that it expressed its full support to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant in order to help him overcome the problems related to his mother’s death. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further maintains that following the meeting, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant´s behaviour improved. 13. In continuation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent refers to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s first international call-up and alleges that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was absent without its consent as from 17 October 2012 until 16 November 2012 and therefore missed 5 league games and 2 cup games. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent states that it was informed by the Football Federation from country P that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant had returned to country P on his own and that he had lost his wallet and credits cards, but was still in possession of his passport. As a consequence, on 7 November 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent a letter to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s agent informing the latter that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s behaviour constituted a serious breach of the contract and that therefore the sanctions provided by article 5 par. 2 of the contract would therefore be imposed. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that on 19 November 2012 a meeting was held with the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant during which a decision was taken to impose the following disciplinary sanctions on the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant: obligation to train with the U-19 team, non-payment of the salary due during the absence and decrease of 50% of the his salary from November 2012 to February 2013. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, these sanctions were formally notified to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant via his agent on 20 November 2012. 14. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further stresses on the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s failure to report back to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent after the U-20 Championship. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleges that between 14 February 2013 and 4 March 2013, i.e. the date of termination of the contract by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, it tried on many occasions to find an amicable solution to the matter at hand, however to no avail. 15. In light of the above-mentioned, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustains that it is actually the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant who has breached the contract without just cause. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant has failed to return on time on two occasions, missing a significant number of official matches. 16. Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant has apparently signed a contract with the club from country P, Club U (hereinafter: the Respondent II) on 20 March 2013, thus the latter should be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation amounting to EUR 2,000,000 for the breach of the employment contract by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant. 17. In its reply, the Respondent II rejects any kind of wrong doing and stresses that it always acted legitimately in accordance with national and international regulations. According to the Respondent II, it was contacted by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant on 11 March 2013 and informed that he had effectively terminated his employment contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and that he was consequently a “free agent”. The Respondent II alleges that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant presented a letter dated 7 March 2013 and drafted by the “Agremiación de Fútbolistas Profesionales”, confirming the foregoing information. 18. On 2 May 2013, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requesting to be awarded with EUR 130,000, broken down as follows: - EUR 95,000 as compensation; - EUR 35,000 as “an estimate of expenses for medical treatment to be undergone the next two years”. 19. In his counterclaim, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant first of all stresses that his first absence cannot be considered as a disciplinary infringement since it was due to the loss of his residence card and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was duly informed of it. 20. In continuation, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant maintains that the disciplinary proceedings carried out on 19 November 2012 violated the basic procedural rules, in particular his right to be heard. According to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, he was not provided with an adequate translator and therefore was unable to understand the accusations and present his defence. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant also states that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent failed to properly notify the disciplinary sanctions to him. 21. In addition, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant asserts that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent violated the principle of “causation”. In this respect, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant explains that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent justified the sanction by his disciplinary misconduct while the actual cause, as evidenced by the letter dated 7 November 2012, was the bad sporting results obtained during his absence. In this regard, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant sustains that there is no evidence that his participation in the games would have led to a different result and therefore concludes that the sanction has no cause. 22. Furthermore, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant affirms that the sanction applied, i.e. the reduction of his salary, exceeded what was provided by the contract. According to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, for the period from November 2012 to January 2013, the contract entitled him to a salary of EUR 10,200 gross. Therefore, and considering the sanction to reduce his salary by 50%, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant should have received EUR 5,100 gross; however, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant maintains having only received EUR 2,319.88, i.e. a 71% reduction was applied. Additionally, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant points out that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent undertook to withhold EUR 400 per month from his salary in order to pay his rent, but failed to make these payments for three months without refunding him. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant concludes that this drastic reduction of his wages may be deemed as a lack of payment of salaries for three consecutive months entitling him to terminate the contract with just cause. 23. Subsequently, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant outlines that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent failed to provide him with the adequate medical support and treatment for the mental disorder from which he was suffering as from early January 2012. In this regard, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant points out that in January 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s doctor prescribed him alprazolam, which according to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant is medication used to treat mental health problems, and deduces therefrom that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was aware of his illness since then but did not take any measures to help him. 24. Moreover, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant states that the amount set in art. 6 par. 11 of the contract is disproportionate as it corresponds to more than 49 yearly salaries. 25. Finally, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant asserts that he never engaged in transfer negotiations while he was under contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and that the Respondent II did not induce him to terminate the contract. In this respect, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant alleges that the negotiations were undertaken without his authorisation by people directly linked to the agency in charge of his representation. 26. In response to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent recalls that it was only informed of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s medical condition on 28 November 2012. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stresses that said medical report states that “slight to medium depressingness is present” and that “working potential is actually preserved”. Additionally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserts that alprazolam is usually used to treat short term anxiety and sadness. 27. In continuation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant did not provide any evidence, such as a police report, in order to sustain that his first absence was unavoidable. 28. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent insists that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s right of defence was preserved in the disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent highlights that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was assisted by his official agent during the hearing, that the sanction was communicated to him through his agent and that he had the opportunity to challenge the decision. 29. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further insists that the reduction of wages was imposed on a temporary basis in accordance with the contract. It also mentions that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was never deprived of income and received financial aid from his agent. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that it withheld the rental contributions due to outstanding debts the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant had towards the landlord and remained prepared to pay these contributions either to the landlord or to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant upon the latter’s request. 30. As to the amount set in the compensation clause, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argues that it cannot be considered disproportionate since the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was subsequently transferred from the Respondent II to Club M for a transfer fee of two to three millions euros. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also mentions that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s first calls with the A team from country P in the meantime evidence that the amount is proportionate. 31. Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requests FIFA to impose sporting sanctions both on the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent highlights that the Respondent II failed to comply with the obligations provided by art. 18 par. 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 32. In his duplica, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant reiterates the argumentation submitted previously. 33. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent II did not submit additional comments. 34. On 20 March 2013, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II concluded an employment contract, valid as of the date of signature until 31 December 2014 and entitling the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to a monthly salary of USD 3,000 (approx. EUR 2,320). In this regard, the Football Federation from country P was authorised to provisionally register the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant with the Respondent II by decision of the Single Judge of the Player’s Status Committee dated 26 April 2013, after the Football Association from country S rejected the delivery of the ITC and the Football Federation from country P submitted a request for provisional registration of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant. 35. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant did not inform FIFA about his new contractual situation. Nevertheless, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 29 August 2013, the Respondent II and Club M concluded an agreement for the loan of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant until 30 June 2014. According to such agreement the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant received a monthly salary of EUR 15,800 during the loan period. Subsequently, as per the documentation uploaded into TMS, on 25 April 2014, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and Club M, concluded an employment contract, valid as of 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2017 and according to which the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, EUR 23,700 per month for the 2014-15 season. 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 12 March 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 editions 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an club from country S, a player from country P and club from country P. 3. In continuation, 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 (editions 2012 and 2014), and considering that the original claim in the present matter was lodged on 12 March 2013, the 2012 edition of 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, entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that, on 21 August 2011, the parties signed an employment contract, valid as from 23 August 2011 until 31 May 2015, according to which the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 3,400. 6. Furthermore, the Chamber also took note that it is uncontested by both parties that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant terminated in writing the contractual relationship on 4 March 2013 after having given a two-day default notice to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 26 February 2012. Besides, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent replied to the default notice within the deadline and invited the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to a meeting in order to discuss the issue. The members of the Chamber also observed that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant declined the aforementioned invitation and subsequently, entered into an employment contract with the Respondent II on 20 March 2013. 7. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the argumentation of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, who insisted on the fact that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent failed to provide him with medical support in spite of having been informed of his mental disorder in January 2012. Moreover, the DRC observed that according to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, the disciplinary sanction taken by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, i.e. the reduction of his salary, apart from having been imposed on him in violation of his right to be heard, exceeded what was provided by the contract. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant considered that the reduction of wages as of November 2012 equated to a lack of payment of three monthly salaries. The members then noted that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant sustained that his first absence was due to the loss of his residence permit. 8. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent pointed out that on two occasions, i.e. as of 16 October 2012 until 16 November and as of 8 February 2013 until the termination of the contract, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was absent without its consent, which, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, constitutes a breach of contract. The Chamber further took due note of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s argument, according to which it was only informed of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s mental condition in November 2012 when the latter provided it with a medical report as well as a letter in which he explained that he would continue his treatment in country S. In addition, the DRC noted that according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the reduction of wages was only imposed on a temporary basis and on the basis of a transparent procedure. 9. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim and counterclaim respectively lodged by the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract was 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. 10. In view of the above, the Chamber subsequently went on to deliberate as to whether the lack of medical support and the excessive reduction of wages, which are invoked by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant in its defence, can be considered as a just cause for the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to have prematurely terminated the employment relationship. 11. In this context, whilst referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Chamber deemed necessary to highlight that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant had not presented substantial evidence proving that he suffered a serious mental disorder and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent failed to provide him with medical support in spite of being aware of it since January 2012. On the other hand, the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent submitted documentary evidence showing that at the end of November 2012, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant informed it that he had already planned to follow a medical treatment with a doctor from country S in order to treat his mental disorder, i.e. a “slight to medium depressingness” according to the medical report provided. In addition, the DRC deemed useful to stress that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant then left definitively country S at the beginning of December 2012, i.e. a few days later, and therefore did not give the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the opportunity to take any measure. 12. In continuation, the Chamber deemed fit to recall that the disciplinary sanction was imposed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 19 November 2012 and notified to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant through his agent the next day; however the latter sanction had never been challenged by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant before 26 February 2013, i.e. more than three months later. In addition, the DRC deemed also useful to mention that in his counterclaim, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant did not request to be awarded any arrears. 13. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber wished to emphasise that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant only gave the Claimant / Counter-Respondent a two-day notice for the compliance with its alleged obligations, which according to the longstanding jurisprudence of the Chamber, do not constitute a reasonable deadline for a party to be able to comply with its duties, in particular considering the alleged obligations in default and the fact that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was in country P. 14. As far as the absences are concerned, the Chamber reverted to the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and outlined that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant did not submit any official element attesting that he had actually lost his papers and, therefore, that he could not return to country S. Furthermore, the Chamber was eager to underline that on occasion of both absences, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to resume his activities. In addition, the DRC lent emphasis on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s goodwill, which replied to the default notice within the two-day deadline, inviting the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to a meeting in order to discuss the issue; proposal that was declined by the latter. 15. Accordingly, and taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant did not have just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 4 March 2013 and that, consequently, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract without just cause. 16. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant should be fully rejected. 17. In light of the foregoing, the DRC established that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay compensation to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous content of article 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s new club, i.e. the Respondent II, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint liability of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s new club is independent from the question as to whether the new club has induced the contractual breach. This conclusion is in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber and has been repeatedly confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. 18. Having stated the above, the Chamber focused 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 reiterated 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 I / Counter-Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract(s), the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years as well as the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period. The DRC recalled that the list of objective criteria is not exhaustive and that the broad scope of criteria indicated tends to ensure that a just and fair amount of compensation is awarded to the prejudiced party. 19. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the relevant employment contract between the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation for breach of contract. The members of the Chamber recalled the content of art. 7 of the contract which provides, inter alia that “regardless the previous termination clauses, at any time during the length of his contract, regardless protected or non-protected period and/or in or out of the transfers windows, the Player and/or a club interested in his professional services as football player can terminate the present employment contract and fully recover his federative and registration rights and his right to sign a new employment contract with a new club, by paying the amount of 2.000.000,- EUR two million EUR) to the account of the Club stated in the Contract (…)”. 20. In this regard, the members of the Chamber observed that this clause does not refer to the concept of compensation to be paid in case of breach of contract. On the contrary, the clause rather constitutes a “buy-out” clause setting the payment of a certain amount in exchange for the Respondent I / Counter- Claimant to freely leave the Claimant / Counter-Respondent without any risk of being deemed in breach of contract. The Chamber thus held that the above-mentioned article could not be considered as a clause by which both parties to the contract had agreed to the amount due, in case of termination of the contract without just cause. 21. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the setback suffered by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in the present matter had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this regard, the DRC emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter, as well as the Chamber’s specific knowledge of the world of football and its experience gained throughout the years. 22. Consequently, in order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in the present case, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant under the existing contract and the new contract(s), which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. In this context, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the DRC to take into consideration both the existing contract and the new contract(s) in the calculation of the amount of compensation, thus enabling the Chamber to gather indications as to the economic value attributed to a player by both his former and his new club(s). 23. In this regard, the DRC established, on the one hand, that the employment contract between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, signed on 21 August 2011, had been set to expire on 31 May 2015. Therefore, as of 4 March 2013, i.e. the date of the breach, the total value of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s employment agreement with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the remaining contractual period amounted to EUR 91,800. On the other hand, the members of the Chamber established that should the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant have stayed with the Respondent II until the date of expiry of the contract concluded with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, i.e. 31 May 2015, he would have been entitled to receive an amount of EUR 62,640. On the basis of the aforementioned financial contractual elements, the Chamber concluded that the average of remuneration between the contracts concluded by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant respectively with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent II over the relevant period amounted to EUR 77,220. 24. Consequently, on account of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of EUR 77,220 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract. In addition and with regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request for interest, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 12 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. Furthermore, the Respondent II is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the relevant compensation (cf. point II.17 above). 25. Furthermore, the Chamber held that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim pertaining to legal costs is rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence. 26. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club Z, is partially accepted. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, Player J, is rejected. 3. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant is ordered 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 EUR 77,220 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 12 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. The Respondent II, Club U, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned compensation. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned point 3 is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II 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. 7. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected. ***** 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