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 10 April 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member John Bramhall (England), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member on the matter between the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, Country F as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen 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 10 April 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member John Bramhall (England), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member on the matter between the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, Country F as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 July 2008, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or Respondent), concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of its signature until the end of the 2010/2011 season. 2. Art. 3 of the contract provided for a total remuneration of USD 1,000,000, specified as follows: 2008/2009 season: USD 275,000 - USD 68,750, payable on 20 July 2008 - USD 68,750 payable on 1 January 2009 - USD 68,750 payable on 15 April 2009 - 25% of USD 275,000 (i.e. USD 68,750) to be paid at the end of the season according to the proportion of the participation of the player. ``In playing the proportion of 80% of the number of matches will be considered the rate which the player is due for these amounts (25%) completely. (…)”. 2009/2010 season: USD 325,000 - USD 81,250 payable on 1 August 2009 - USD 81,250 payable on 1 January 2010 - USD 81,250 payable on 15 April 2010 - 25% of USD 325,000 to be paid at the end of the season according to the proportion of the participation of the player. ``In playing the proportion of 80% of the number of matches will be considered the rate which the player is due for these amounts (25%) completely. (…)”. 2010/2011 season: USD 400,000 - USD 100,000 payable on 1 August 2010 - USD 100,000 payable on 1 January 2011 - USD 100,000 payable on 15 April 2011 - 25% of USD 400,000 to be paid at the end of the season according to the proportion of the participation of the player. ``In playing the proportion of 80% of the number of matches will be considered the rate which the player is due for these amounts (25%) completely. (…)”. 3. Furthermore, the contracts contains inter alia the following articles: Art. 4: ``The player will incur the taxes of the total amount of the contract according to law. The club will settle the taxes to the concerned tax administration and inform the player for the document of paying after the end of the season and before the beginning of the next season.’’ Art. 5 lit. 7: ``Any financial fine imposed on the player by the association will be deducted from the player dues and sent to the association.’’ Art. 6 lit. 6: ``The player undertakes to bound to the regulation approved by the club and the club will have signature of the player on the regulation which it keeps and give the player a copy.’’ Art. 6 lit. 8: ``Any period of suspension imposed on the player under a decision from the association or the club which the player is responsible for its reasons after adequate investigation and after the suspension is approved by the association, the club has the right to deduct proportion from the players dues equal to the period of suspension to the season.’’ Furthermore, page 12 of the contract provides the following provision: “Fees of approval of club contracts of first and second divisions 3% of the total value of the contract as follows: 0.5% paid at the branch which the player will be registered at. 0.5% paid by certified check in the name of the branch which the player transferred from. (…) 1% paid at the branch which the player will be registered at if the player is transferring from one club to another inside the same branch and not outside it. 1% paid to the association.’’ 4. Moreover, in accordance with the club’s internal regulations, foreign players were entitled to receive a monthly rent of 3,000 for married players and 2,500 for single players. Also, the club’s internal regulations stipulate various financial penalties that could be imposed on their players. 5. On 9 January 2009, the player put the club in default of payment of the amount of USD 68,750, which was due on 1 January 2009, asking the club to pay until 14 January 2009. Moreover, the player indicated that the club was not paying his rent in a timely manner, which was causing him problems with his landlord. The letter further refers to an 8 match suspension concerning an incident in a match on 8 August 2008 and indicates that the player was forced to train alone. 6. On 13 January 2009, the player sent a letter to the Football Association of country D informing it that the club did not pay his rent. 7. On 19 January 2009, the player terminated the contract in writing indicating that he had i) not received any salary since 20 “June” 2008, and ii) that his rent had not been paid. 8. On 7 February 2009, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club, requesting, after an amendment on 29 April 2010, the amount of USD 80,802 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest as of the due dates, as well as USD 1,223,566 as compensation for breach of contract. 9. The breakdown of the alleged amount of outstanding remuneration of USD 80,802 is as follows: - USD 10,000 corresponding to a deduction made from the USD 68,750 due on 20 July 2008; - USD 1,620 related to unpaid rent for the months of October, November and December 2008 (3 x USD 540); - USD 432 corresponding to 20% of the rent regarding the months of July, August, September 2008 and January 2009; - USD 68,750 corresponding to the instalment due on 1 January 2009. 10. The player sustains that after 4 months the club’s coaching staff changed and that he was forced to train alone, whilst stressing that he never missed a training session. 11. Furthermore, the player highlighted that the club imposed sanctions on him as well as an 8 match suspension which did not comply with the terms of the contract. The player held that in accordance with art. 6 lit. 8 of the contract, any suspension imposed on him would have to be appropriately investigated and approved by the association. The player added that the deductions applied would also have to be sent to Football Association of country D, in accordance with art. 5 lit. 7 of the contract, which never happened. 12. In addition, the player alleges that the club retained his passport in order to prevent him from leaving the country. He sustains that he requested the club to return his passport, without success, as the club allegedly argued that the passport was not in its possession and that it had no awareness of its whereabouts. The player reported the situation to the police who afterwards presented the statement before the embassy of country B in country D authorizing the issuance of a new passport, which he obtained on 2 February 2009. 13. On 16 June 2009, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player maintaining that the player terminated the contract without just cause. As a result, the club requested compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 1,223,566 plus 5% interest as of 16 June 2009, calculated as follows: - USD 862,500 for the salary as from March 2009 until June 2011; - USD 22,500 for the non-amortised advance payment (USD 67,500 / 12 x 4); - USD 14,978 for the rent as from March 2009 until June 2011; - USD 4,881 for the non-amortised expenses incurred during the negotiation of the contract in July 2008 (USD 6,276 / 36 x 28); - USD 300,000 for the specificity of sport; - USD 18,707 for the remaining debt regarding the fines imposed in February 2009. 14. The club highlighted that it fulfilled its financial obligations. In particular, it stated that: - It had paid the instalment due on 20 July 2008 as well as the rent; - It had paid for extra flight tickets for the player and his wife on 6 January 2009; - Since 1 January 2009 it had no outstanding financial obligations, whereas the player at that time had debts towards the club equal to USD 56,059. 15. As to the payment due on 20 July 2008, the club sustains that the gross amount of USD 68,750 is equivalent to the net amount of USD 55,000. The club asserts that the income tax in country D corresponds to 20%, and thus it deducted the amount of USD 13,750. Also, it deducted USD 10,000 equivalent to 1% of the total value of the contract for registration costs (cf. par. 3 above). 16. In this respect, the club submitted a cheque dated 29 July 2008 for the amount of USD 45,000, a page of ``The income tax law no. 91 of 2005’’ establishing a tax rate of 20%, as well as a letter dated 8 December 2008 sent by the player’s agent to the Football Association of country D, in which the agent states that USD 10,000 was deducted from the salary as well as 20% from the rent. 17. With regard to the flight tickets and accommodation, the club stated that, outside its contractual obligations and upon request by the player on 6 January 2009, it provided him on the same date with cheques covering tickets and hotel costs. According to the club, the player obtained the total amount of USD 6,276: - 9,106 (according to the club equivalent to USD 1,623); - 15,673.76 (according to the club equivalent to USD 2,794); - USD 1,859. In this regard, the club submitted an apparent bank statement as well as a letter dated 6 January 2009, signed by the player which reads: ``I ask from [the club] to give me the price of both my ticket and my wife ticket and also the bill of the accommodation in the hotel before I sign to the club and I declare that these issues were not included in my contract.” 18. Furthermore, the club held that it did pay the player’s rent and submitted a payment receipt signed by the player stating that he had received the amount of 2,800 as rent for January 2009. With regard to the rent pertaining to the months prior to January 2009, the club maintains that rent has to be considered as income too, reason for which it deducted 20% of such amounts. 19. What is more, according to the club, the player was fined with the following amounts: - USD 34,374 on the basis of art. 6 lit. 8 of the contract for physically harming his teammate during a match played on 8 August 2008. The club explained that the Football Association of country D Competition Emergency Committee decided on 10 August 2008 to impose a fine of 10,000 (approx. USD 1,780) on the club. The club sustains that it was ordered to deduct this amount from the player’s salaries. A letter from the Football Association of country D dated 10 August “2009” is submitted by the club in which the Football Association of country D asked the club to pay 10,000 and to deduct such amount from the player’s dues. In this respect, the club stressed that the fine of USD 34,374 is not a second sanction for the same offence; the fine of 10,000 was imposed by the Football Association of country D for purely disciplinary objectives, whereas the contract provided the club with the possibility to protect itself against a player’s serious infringement of his contractual obligations. - 50,000 (according to the club USD 8,905) in accordance with the section ``Speaking to Media’’ of its internal regulations which stipulates that ``Speaking to Media without permission a deduction around 1,500 and 25,000 initially, if media declaration destroying Club’s, administration, players reputation another penalty be imposed according to range of event’’. According to the club, on 10 October 2008, the player held an unauthorized interview in which he ``severely abused’’ the club’s reputation. In this respect, the club provided an undated letter by means of which the club asked the Football Association of country D to approve the sanctions of USD 34,374 and 50,000. - USD 11,000 in compliance with its internal regulations for failing to demonstrate seriousness, commitment and obligation to directions of the club’s staff during a match played on 26 October 2008. 20. In this regard, the club indicated that until January 2009, it had not deducted any of the fines from the player’s salary, the player therefore owing the club USD 56,059 (USD 34,374 + USD 1,780 + USD 8,905 + USD 11,000) not taking into account the fines imposed until February 2009. As a consequence, in January 2009, the club deducted the said sum from the player’s salary of USD 55,000. 21. The club further alleged that the player, by means of an undated and unsigned letter, confirmed the validity of the fines without any objection. Said letter reads: ``I only want you to know that I haven’t write any complain against [the club] about the decision taken against me which I accept and respect without any objection and I haven’t ask from my agent to write any complain nor to pass it to [Football Association of country D] and I demand to consider this issue closed and over and I admit never to write any complain to the federation against the club in the future.’’ 22. The club added that due to the player’s severe misconduct, the sanctions are not disproportionate. 23. Furthermore, the club maintains that according to its internal regulations, absence from training should be fined for the ``1st time deducting 3,000, second time 4,000, third time 5,000, for the fourth time 10,000 and be raised to Club Board for adding any other penalty.’’ 24. The club asserts that in the middle of January 2009, the player left the club without authorisation and/or any written notice. According to the club, the player was only able to leave country D because he lied to the police that he lost his passport “despite the latter document at the Claimant’s disposal.” 25. The player was then absent as from 20 January 2009 until 10 February 2009 and returned to training between 11 February 2009 and 16 February 2009. On 17 February 2009, the player again left the club without authorisation and, therefore, until the end of February 2009 the player was absent for 34 days. 26. On these grounds, the club fined the player with an amount of USD 916 “for each day of the player’s absence after the fourth day.” Therefore, the club imposed on the player a fine of USD 27,480 (USD 916 x 30 days) plus a further fine in the amount of 22,000 (USD 3,918 according to the club). 27. Consequently, the club alleges that the player has an additional debt of USD 31,398 (USD 27,480 + USD 3,918). An undated letter of the club is submitted, according to which the player had been absent for a total of 66 days, as from 20 January 2009 until 10 February 2009 and from 17 February 2009 until 1 April 2009, and the fine imposed on him amounted to USD “60,470”. 28. In addition, the club contested the player’s allegations that it suspended him for 8 additional matches due to his fight with a teammate. The club maintains that the player was fielded on the 5th match of the 2008/2009 season, directly after the 3 match suspension imposed by the Football Association of country D had elapsed. 29. In his reply to the counter-claim, the player reiterated that the club only paid USD 45,000 out of the first USD 68,750, therefore withholding 34.5% of the relevant amount. The player argued that the deduction of USD 10,000 is illegal and that the contract does not specify who is responsible for the payment of the 1%. 30. With regard to the rent, the player insists that i) there is no contractual basis to deduct 20% tax from the rent, ii) as of September 2008 the club stopped paying the rent altogether, and iii) when the player claimed the payment of the rent for January, he had not received the sum yet, which had been paid afterwards. 31. As to the fines, the player sustains that they are arbitrary, based on inexistent facts and rejects all of them; he never missed training sessions and he had never been informed of the existence of such fines until he requested the payment of his salaries. Only after his complaint, the club started sanctioning him by not allowing him to train with the team. The player further sustains the following: a) He never received the fine allegedly imposed on him by the Football Association of country D due to his expulsion from the match on 8 August 2008. b) As to the interview, it was rather an article published by a magazine owned by the club without his consent. c) As for the fine relating to the match played on 26 October 2008, the player denies such allegations and adds that this game was one of his best games of the season. d) he never missed training sessions and refutes the club’s allegations that he was absent as from 20 January 2009 until 10 February 2009 and that he left again on 17 February 2009. The player sustains that he continued training until 22 February 2009, when he was informed by his agent that he had obtained FIFA’s authorization to leave country D and after having obtained a new passport from the embassy. According to the player, his return ticket to country B was issued on 23 February 2009 and he submitted a copy of a flight reservation, city of country B for 26 February 2009. e) the club acted contrary to art. 6 lit. 8 of the contract since no investigation took place, the player’s sanctions were not approved by the Football Association of country D and the relevant communication to the player did not take place. 32. As to the undated and unsigned letter (cf. par. 21 above), the player held that the club wrote such letter and tried to coerce him to sign said document but he never did. 33. Finally, the player asserts that he was constantly subjected to humiliation and pressure from the club, which together with the critical financial situation experienced, resulted in big stress in his personal life. In this respect, the player stressed that his wife lost the baby they were expecting. 34. On account of the above, the player added a request of USD 1,223,566 as compensation for psychological and moral coercion, the bad faith of the club and to prevent him from playing with another club for more than one year. 35. In reply to the amended claim, the club reiterated its previous position and added that: - The player confirmed having received the net amount of USD 45,000 which corresponds to the gross amount of USD 68,750 as well as the deduction of USD 10,000 concerning the registration costs. The player received this amount by cheque dated 29 July 2008, which clearly specified the reductions, signed for it and at the time did not complaint about any deductions. The club held that the Football Association of country D Regulations stipulate such reduction and that the contract reads that they have “read the regulation of player affairs which is valid during the signing of this contract and this regulation supersedes any other considered as part of this contract and complement for it. Therefore, the deduction of USD 10,000 was correct.” - As to the rent, the club denies not having paid the rent, in particular, the requested amount of USD 2,052, and holds that the player has the burden of proof in this respect. In any case, the player received the amount of USD 6,726 related to flight tickets and accommodation costs which were not included in the employment contract. Therefore, he received three times the amount he would have been entitled to, so even if one would assume that the rent was not paid, either the amount of USD 6,276 should include such fees or the rental fees shall be set-off against this amount. As a consequence, it is clear that the player received all his entitlement until December 2008. - The club reiterated its position as to the fines and the player’s absences and provided “extracts of the official register of absent players covering 21, 22, 23, 27 January as well as 6 February 2009 signed by Mr G, i.e. the Head Coach of Club C.” The club indicated that the player was also absent on all other days between 20 January 2009 and 10 February 2009, but due to the long lapse of time it could no longer find the other pages of the registered absences. - Finally, the club deems that the player acts in bad faith by not providing the employment contracts signed with his new clubs. 36. The player indicated that he was with the club, Club E (Country F) as from March until December 2010, where he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 5,000. As from January until December 2011 he signed with the club from country F Club H and he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 3,000. 37. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Club E did not submit any comments. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 February 2009. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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 2015), 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 player from country B and a club from country D, with the involvement of a club from country F. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 and reiterating that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 7 February 2009, the 2008 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 20 July 2008, the player and the club concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until the end of the 2010/2011 season. In accordance with the contract, the player was inter alia entitled to a gross payment of USD 68,750 on 20 July 2008 and gross payment of USD 68,750 on 1 January 2009. 6. At this point, the Chamber underlined that the club held that the gross amount of USD 68,750 corresponded to the net amount of USD 55,000. The Chamber noted that the club had substantiated such statement with sufficient documentary evidence and stressed that the player had not disputed such figures. As a result, the Chamber concluded that in accordance with the contract, the player was, in principle, entitled to the net payment of USD 55,000 on 20 July 2008 and the net payment of USD 55,000 on 1 January 2009. 7. The Chamber further observed that the player terminated the contract on 19 January 2009 in writing, and that he subsequently lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of USD 80,802 as outstanding remuneration as well as compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 1,223,566. Equally, the player added a request for compensation for psychological and moral coercion and the alleged bad faith of the club. On the other hand, the Chamber duly noted that the club held that it had complied with all its contractual obligations and that it was in fact the player who had terminated the contract without just cause by leaving the club in February 2009. As a result, the club lodged a counter-claim against the player for the total amount of USD 1,223,566. 8. The DRC is aware that whereas the player holds that at the time of the termination of the contract, the club had outstanding salaries to him in the amount of USD 80,802, the club holds that it complied in full with its financial obligations. As a consequence, the Chamber first of all needs to examine whether the club complied with its financial obligations towards the player. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the player and club have, in particular, divergent opinions on whether the deductions made by the club from the player’s salary and rent were justified. In this framework, the Chamber deemed it necessary to examine each and every deduction made. i) The deduction of USD 10,000 concerning the registration costs As to the first deduction of the player’s salary, the Chamber referred to page 12 of the contract which reads: “Fees of approval of club contracts of first and second divisions 3% of the total value of the contract as follows: 0.5% paid at the branch which the player will be registered at. 0.5% paid by certified check in the name of the branch which the player transferred from. (…) 1% paid at the branch which the player will be registered at if the player is transferring from one club to another inside the same branch and not outside it. 1% paid to the association’’. After analysing the aforementioned provision, the Chamber is not convinced that the USD 10,000 registration fee is to be deducted from the player’s salary. The Chamber finds that the cited provision does not indicate which party is responsible for the payment of the registration fee. As such, without an explicit contractual basis and considering that it is the club’s responsibility to register the player with the Football Association of country D, the club was not allowed to deduct the amount of USD 10,000 from the player’s salary. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the club failed to pay the player his full salary on 20 July 2008, remitting only USD 45,000 instead of USD 55,000. ii) The deduction of 10,000 concerning the fine of the Football Association of country D Having closely examined the fine imposed by the Football Association of country D for a disciplinary infringment, the Chamber is satisfied that such fine is justified, proportional and can be accepted. The player did not dispute the reason for which the fine was imposed on him and the amount he is fined with is proportional to his salary. As a result, the club was allowed to deduct the amount of 10,000, which corresponds to USD 1,780, from the player’s salaries. iii) The deduction of USD 34,374 concerning the fine of the club Contrary to the statements of the club, the Chamber does not find that the imposition of this fine is justified. The Chamber outlines that the amount the player was fined with is considered to be disproportionate in relation to his salaries. Furthermore, the Chamber finds that no evidence has been provided by the club that the player was called to defend himself against the imposition of such fine, nor that there is an explicit contractual basis for the imposition of a fine with a value of USD 34,374, neither in the contract nor in the club’s internal regulations. What is more, the Chamber is of the opinion that the player had already been fined by the Football Association of country D for the same offense and does not find it reasonable or proportional that a player is sanctioned twice with a monetary fine for the same offense. iv) The deduction of 50,000 (USD 8,905) concerning the fine of the club The Chamber cannot accept the imposition of this fine considering that no evidence has been provided proving the alleged offense nor that the player had been notified of the decision or had been called up to defend his case. What is more, the amount the player is fined with does not correspond to the amounts indicated in the club’s internal regulations. v) The deduction of USD 11,000 concerning the fine of the club The Chamber notes that this particular fine was imposed on the player for failing to demonstrate seriousness, commitment and obligation to directions of the club’s staff during a match played on 26 October 2008. Again, the Chamber considers that there is no evidence submitted by the club that the player was notified of the club’s decision to impose said fine and, in addition, no evidence was provided of the alleged offense. vi) The deduction of 20% income tax on the rent In accordance with the club’s internal regulations, the player was entitled to receive a monthly amount of 3,000 as rent. The members of the Chamber have noted that the club is of the opinion that 20% income tax should be deducted from this amount. The Chamber, in absence of any documentation that proves the contrary, does not agree with the club. Article 4 of the contract clearly stipulates that “the player will incur the taxes of the total amount of the contract (…)” (emphasis added). The club’s internal regulations do not mention anything in relation to a tax reduction regarding the rent or bonus payments. As such, the Chamber finds that no income tax could be deducted from the player’s rent. 9. In this framework, the Chamber also wished to outline that it cannot consider an unsigned letter allegedly sent by the player to the club as proof that the player had agreed to all the sanctions imposed on him by the club, nor any statement made by the player’s apparent agent. As a consequence of all the foregoing, the Chamber held that the club was only entitled to deduct the amount of 10,000 from the player’s salary. 10. In addition to the above, the Chamber wished to point out that the club had not been able to prove that it had paid the player’s rent for October, November and December 2008. The Chamber acknowledges that the club paid the player a further amount of USD 6,276 in tickets and hotel costs, however, as indicated by the club itself, these payments corresponded to payments “outside its contractual obligations” and should be treated as such; no explicit statement can be found in the letter of 6 January 2009 that said amount may be deducted from the player’s salaries. In other words, the Chamber does not find that the amount of USD 6,276 can be set-off in any way against the contractual obligations of the club. 11. Finally, in relation to the fines imposed on the player for his absence as from midJanuary 2009, the Chamber holds that it cannot take into account these fines as they were imposed after the date of the termination of the contract and after the January instalment fell due, i.e. at a time that the club itself was already in default of its contractual obligations. 12. Considering all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the player had a just cause to terminate the employment contract with the club on 19 January 2009. In particular, the Chamber considers that by 2 January 2009 the amount of USD 63,220 was outstanding corresponding to USD 10,000 as per the 1st installment plus USD 55,000 as per the 2nd installment minus the fine in the amount of USD 1,780. Equally, an amount of 11,400 was outstanding regarding the rent of the player. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that the player had a justified reason not to continue his employment relationship with the club after January 2009. 13. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the player terminated the employment contract with just cause in January 2009 and that, consequently, the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the player. 14. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player. 15. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the club must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. the amounts of USD 63,220 and 11,400. 16. As a result, the Chamber determined that the club has to pay the player the amounts of USD 63,220 and 11,400 as outstanding remuneration. Considering the player’s claim for interest, the Chamber also ruled that the club must pay 5% interest on the aforementioned amounts as from the respective due dates. 17. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from the club compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 18. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 19. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a 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. 20. Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the club, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the player in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the player until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to USD 490,000, only taking into consideration the guaranteed net amounts. 21. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that the player had found new employment, where he would earn the amount of USD 65,000 for the period between March 2010 and December 2011. 22. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, the emuneration as indicated in the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 23. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 425,000 to the player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract. 24. Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided not to grant the player’s request regarding compensation for psychological and moral coercion in absence of sufficient documentary evidence. 25. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected and that the counter-claim of the club is rejected in full. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, outstanding remuneration in the amounts of USD 63,220 and 11,400 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 21 July 2008 on the amount of USD 10,000; - 5% p.a. as of 2 January 2009 on the amount of USD 53,220; - 5% p.a. as of 1 November 2008 on the amount of 3,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2008 on the amount of 3,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 January 2009 on the amount of 3,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 August 2008 on the amount of 600; - 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2008 on the amount of 600; - 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2008 on the amount of 600; - 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2009 on the amount of 600. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in accordance with the above-mentioned number 3. are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 425,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 6. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in accordance with the above-mentioned number 5. is not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 7. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 8. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives