F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. In July 2007, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), entered into an employment contract valid as from 6 July 2007 until 6 July 2012. 2. Also in July 2007, the player and a company named Company E entered into an agreement titled “AGREEMENT to the contract dated 6 July 2007 between Mr. Player A and Club C.” In accordance with the agreement, the player would be entitled to the following amounts: - 1 st contractual year: USD 550,000 in 11 payments of USD 50,000; - 2 nd contractual year: USD 605,000 in 11 payments of USD 55,000; - 3 rd contractual year: USD 660,000 in 11 payments of USD 60,000; - 4 th contractual year: USD 715,000 in 11 payments of USD 65,000; - 5 th contractual year: USD 770,000 in 11 payments of USD 70,000. 3. Equally, the player would be entitled to a signing-on fee of USD 500,000, a furnished apartment, a vehicle and 4 business class flight tickets city F – city G – city F per year. 4. On 18 June 2008, the player was loaned to the Club H from country B until the end of 2008. 5. On 11 December 2008, the agent of the player asked the club whether it had already sent an invitation letter for a visa regarding the player “Player I”, who the agent was apparently also representing. 6. On 24 December 2008, the club provided the agent with the invitation letter for the player “Player I”. 7. On 24 and 26 December 2008, the club sent two invitation letters to the country D’s Consulate in city J; one for the player “Player I” and one for the player “Player K”. 8. On 2 January 2009, the player requested the club to send him a “letter of invitation for the country D’s Consulate in country B” in order to obtain a visa. 9. On 11 February 2009, the player repeated his request. 10. It is undisputed that thereafter a phone conversation took place between the player’s agent and the club, however the content of such conversation is disputed. 11. On 26 February 2009, the player sent his bank account details to the club “as requested”. 12. By means of an email dated 18 March 2009 (and apparently received by the club on 20 March 2009), the player sent a letter to the club dated 16 March 2009 by means of which he repeated his request regarding the visa and informed the club that it had not paid his last 3 salaries while referring to 3 previous e-mails dated “9 January 2009, 27 January and 11 February”. 13. On 23 March 2009, the club informed the player that all official communications had to be sent to the club by registered mail or fax. Further, the club stated that it did not receive “any official mail from the player at the beginning of the year” and stressed that the alleged emails dated 9, 27 January and 11 February were not enclosed. Furthermore, the club stressed that the consulate in country B had all the “necessary documentation” and outlined that in order to receive a visa, the player has to apply to the consulate to fill in a form and present a copy of his employment contract. According to the club, it had been informed by the consulate that the player had failed to do so. In any case, the club stated that the player could have joined the club’s training camp in country L for which no visa was required and from where he could then have travelled to country D. For unknown reasons, the player failed to leave country B and the salary “could not be paid since the Player did not inform about the valid reasons of his absence (…). Besides, the Player by now has not officially communicated his bank details for payments during 2009 calendar year”. Finally, the club requested the player to stop violating the contract and to contact the consulate to obtain a visa, otherwise “the club will be forced to take appropriate penalty sanctions in relation to the Player.” 14. On 30 March and 2 April 2009, the player replied to the club referring to the invitation letter and the outstanding payment of USD 165,000 as well as indicating that he intended to carry out his contractual obligations. 15. In reply thereto, the club informed the player that it was surprised to learn that he still did not have a visa and that the consulate had again informed it that he had yet to apply for such visa. Also, the club stated that it had already sent an invitation letter to the consulate, enclosing an invitation letter dated 5 January 2009. Equally, it informed the player that the club’s board had decided to impose a penalty on him and that the payments due for January to March 2009 would be executed “within this week”. 16. On 14 April 2009, the player bought a flight ticket to travel to country D. 17. On 18 April 2009, the player, back in country D, wrote to the club stressing that despite the letters sent in the beginning of 2009, the club had not stated anything about the remittance of an invitation letter on 5 January 2009 and that this misunderstanding lasted until the end of “March” 2009, when the club informed him that it already sent the invitation letter. The player questioned why he was never informed previously and that it looked like the invitation letter dated 5 January 2009 was only sent after his letter of 16 March 2009 (cf. par. I./12. above). 18. On 23 April 2009, the player informed the club that he had only received USD 45,000 out of the USD 165,000 due for January to March 2009. The player requested the club to indicate to which month the payment of USD 45,000 related and to clarify whether it would pay the remaining amounts. 19. In the end of April 2009, the player was loaned to the Club M from country B until December 2009. 20. At the beginning of 2010, the player was loaned to the Club N from country B until 31 December 2010. 21. On 15 December 2010, the player wrote to the club referring to two e-mails allegedly sent on 16 and 25 November 2010 regarding the need of an invitation letter. The player stated that he would be at the club’s disposal in January 2011, urging the club to send the invitation letter. Also, should the club have already sent the invitation letter directly to the consulate, the player asked to be informed within two days with the enclosure of documentary evidence. 22. On 17, 21 and 22 February 2011, the player allegedly sent 3 emails to Mr O, an employee of the club (XXXX), requesting again an invitation letter and informing the club of his bank account for the salary of January 2011. 23. On 26 May 2011, the player allegedly sent an email to XXXX requesting an invitation letter, stating that the consulate in city J did not answer the phone and informing the club that the consulate in city P had not received any letter. 24. On 1 June 2011, the club sent an invitation letter to the consulate for the player “Player Q”. 25. On 1 and 2 June 2011, the player informed the consulate that the club had told him that it sent an invitation letter to the consulate. In reply thereto, the consulate informed the player that they did not yet receive such invitation letter. 26. By means of a letter dated 16 June 2011, sent to the club on 17 June 2011, the player gave the club a deadline of 48 hours to: - deliver the invitation letter; - pay USD 120,000 for the outstanding salaries of January to March 2009 and USD 390,000 for the outstanding salaries of January to June 2011. In case of failure to do so, the player would terminate the contract. 27. On 20 June 2011, the player sent a communication to FIFA requesting the immediate termination of the contract, indicating that he had been prevented from exercising his work since December 2010 and that he was waiting in country B for his work permit. 28. As to the financial part of his claim, the player requested: - USD 510,000 as outstanding remuneration (USD 120,000 for 2009 + USD 390,000 for 2011); - USD 770,000 as compensation for breach of contract; - USD 1,000,000 as damages based on the specificity of sport; - 5% interest as from the due dates. 29. In his claim, the player stressed that an invitation letter is indispensable to obtain a visa and outlined that the players “Player I” and “Player K” had requested an invitation letter via the email address XXXX and subsequently received them. The player emphasised that he had requested the invitation letter on 2 January 2009 and that he had reminded the club on several occasions. However, he only received an invitation letter dated 5 January 2009 after he threatened with legal action in March 2009. According to the player, the only plausible conclusion for the foregoing is that the club backdated the invitation letter. 30. Equally, the player held that he could not travel to country L for the simple reason that the club had not informed him about a training camp in country L and that, in any case, he would face the same problem if afterwards he had to travel to country D. 31. As to the situation that occurred in the end of 2010, the player stated that in November and December 2010, he tried to contact the club by phone and email requesting an invitation letter, however to no avail. On 15 December 2010, he then sent a notification via FEDEX to the address of the club referring to the emails of 16 and 25 November 2010. Further reminders were sent by the player on 17, 21, 22 February and 26 May 2011, again to no avail. 32. As such, the player deemed that the club acted in violation of the contract as well as contrary to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 33. In reply to the claim, the club first pointed out that it paid a transfer sum of USD 3,650,000 for the transfer of the player and that only at the start of the employment relationship he showed a professional attitude. Very soon after, the player demonstrated a decline in performance, in particular, since he could not stand the competition with other players, did not like the country, underestimated the national championship and demonstrated an arrogant attitude. As a result, the player was not used on the pitch since 29 September 2007. The club holds that this cannot be based on bad faith considering the amount of transfer compensation it had paid to the player’s former club. 34. The club further stated that it quickly became clear that the player wanted to leave country D. As a result, the club agreed to loan the player on 3 occasions without requesting any loan fee. Afterwards, the club hoped the player would “come to his senses” but instead he decided to “artificially create false “just cause“ for termination of the contract.” 35. In particular, the club stressed that the player failed to prove that he ever applied for a visa in 2009 and 2011; he never applied and he was thus never denied a visa for the lack of an invitation letter. In this respect, the club held that it did nothing wrong since the invitation letter is not a necessary prerequisite to obtain a visa and the player failed to prove that under country D’s legislation the existence of a contract with a country D’s entity was not sufficient for the issuance of a visa. In this context, the club submitted a letter dated 2 April 2015 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of country D confirming that: - In 2011 no invitation was required for foreign professional football players; and - “Following results of negotiation process initiated in 2009 the visa regime for citizens of country B was simplified. (…) According to the laws and subordinate legislation of country D, valid employment contract with a legal entity of country D is considered as sufficient ground to process visa issuance for employment purpose.” 36. The club further stated that it did not receive any request or letter prior to March 2009 and February 2011 and that upon receiving the player’s first request in March 2009, the club immediately informed the player that no invitation letter was needed and that he himself should apply for a visa. Nevertheless, the club any way issued the invitation letter to the consulate and a copy to his agent. The club further stressed that it is the player who had the obligation to apply for a visa since this can only be done by a physical person. 37. As a result, the club held that it never violated art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 38. Equally, the club held that the majority of the documentation submitted by the player does not prove that he argued that the club needed to send an invitation letter until his letters in March 2009 and February 2011 “as long as the letters, which the player submitted in this regard, are not direct messages to the club but internal correspondence between his lawyer and his agent which contain references to texts allegedly addressed to Club C.” The club held that such documentation can easily be falsified and do not prove that the club received any request until March 2009. As soon as it received the letter in March 2009, the player was given an explanation of how to proceed. 39. What is more, the club held that the player should have travelled to country L in January 2009 and to country R/country L in 2011, for which trips he did not need a visa. Thus, the visa issue was irrelevant to his absence of work. 40. As to the situation in 2009, the club states that: a) The salaries for January to March 2009 are time-barred; b) The player indicated that on 2 January 2009 he requested the invitation letter, which proves that he violated the contract since the loan with Club H expired on 31 December 2008. Hence, on 2 January 2009 he should have already been back at the club. By applying in April 2009 only, the player violated the contract especially considering that in country D the absence of work for 3 hours is sufficient ground to terminate a contract. c) The letters allegedly sent in January 2009 were not submitted by the player; d) In the letter of 26 February 2009, the player no longer requested for the invitation letter, proving that the player knew that he did not need an invitation letter, as had been told to him in a phone conversation earlier that month. e) Due to a “communication error” the email of 11 February 2009 was never received by Mr O, however, at that time the invitation letter had already been sent. f) The club did not backdate any letter and on 23 March 2009 the club informed the player that the consulate already had all the necessary documents to issue a visa. g) All the player had to do to obtain a visa, was apply and submit his employment contract, but he failed to do so. 41. As to the invitation letters for the other players, the club indicated that it is general knowledge that any consulate has “great discretion”, especially when a person has had previous problems to obtain a visa. Therefore, to strengthen the players’ changes “such unnecessary document was sometimes given to them, Claimant included”. In this respect, the club questioned why the player could provide two letters of the agent requesting the visa for the players “Player I” and “Player K” whereas he was not able to produce a similar letter for himself. 42. Finally, as to the January to March 2009 salary, the club indicated that in order to normalize the situation, Company E paid the player USD 120,000 in several installments when he was on loan with Club M between June and December 2009. 43. As to the situation in 2011, the club states that: a) The player repeated the same trick as in 2009, again not applying for a visa; b) The requests dated 16 and 25 November 2010 were not submitted; c) The address on the FEDEX receipt regarding the letter dated 15 December 2010 is not the address of the club and the person mentioned in the receipt (Mr S) never worked for the club. d) The email sent on 26 May 2011 was sent to an outdated email address of Mr O. e) The other communications provided by the player are all internal communications between him, his agent and his lawyer. No proof has been submitted that the other communications were received by Mr O. 44. Finally, the club stated that it did not lodge a counterclaim against the player on the basis of its lenient attitude, the fact that the player ruined his own career and since, realistically, the player would be unable to pay compensation. 45. In his replica, the player reiterated his previous argumentation and added that: a) The letter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms that on 30 December 2011 the “tourism visa for 90 days was abolished”, i.e. only after the termination of the contract. The player states that on 30 December 2011 a treaty was signed between country B and country D ending the visa requirements for tourism. In the player’s view, this means that prior to 30 December 2011, citizens from country B had to apply for a visa and an invitation letter was required in order to obtain a visa. b) The club failed to prove that it had sent the invitation letter or paid the outstanding remuneration. c) The salaries for January to March 2009 are not time-barred since the 2 year time period started running as from 19 June 2011 only. d) No fines could be imposed since there is no contractual basis for such fines, there are no grounds for the fines and the player was never heard. e) There are emails on file which are answered by Mr O from the address XXXX, e.g. the email sent on 26 December 2008. Also, on 23 March 2009, the club’s “head of the football department” wrote “with regard to your message, received on 20 March by one of our employees to his e-mail address (…)”.. 46. In its duplica, the club reiterated its previous argumentation and added that: - The letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs clearly indicates that in 2009 and 2011 an invitation letter was not needed for working professional football players. - The answer of the consulate does not prove that an invitation letter was needed in 2011 and the consulate was not given the information that the player already had an employment contract in force for 5 years. - Despite being in possession of the correct email address, “for inexplicable reasons the player did not contact [Mr O] in a timely manner in early December 2008 (and definitely not numerously), failed to prove dispatch of any direct correspondence, allegedly sent to the club in 2011. The only exception is the letter of 26 May 2011 – when the player intentionally used wrong (outdated) email address of Mr O, which of course prevented the latter from receiving such message. All so called “communication proofs”, submitted by the Player (…) are more than strange, as they are either indirect (referenced) or lack proofs of begin dispatched.” - The salary for 3 months of salary in 2009 were paid. - The player was also absent from work between 16 – 21 April 2009, when the player was residing in the most posh hotel in city F but not going to training instead spending USD 4,000 in 6 days. - The player failed to explain why he was waiting 5,5 months in 2011 “and did not bring this issue before FIFA or country D’s dispute resolution authorities” - Regarding 2011, no “earlier messages” existed until the termination letter of 20 June 2011 and all previous correspondence was staged. The only communication that really took place in 2011 were the telephone calls of Mr O to the player and his agent whereby Mr O urged the player to resume his work. 47. As to the invitation letters for the players “Player K” and “Player I”, “all those player were represented by the same agent and all of them were, so to say, troublemakers. (…) In all probability, the agent intentionally asked as regards those players for invitations (which in reality were not necessary), as a pretext for them being late.” 48. Upon request, the player informed FIFA that he signed an employment contract with the club from country B, Club T, valid as from 11 May 2012 until 10 May 2013 where he earned a monthly salary of 622. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or 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 20 June 2011. 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. 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 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and reiterating that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 20 June 2011, the 2010 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 it is undisputed between the parties that in July 2007 they entered into an employment relationship in accordance with which the player would render his services to the club as from 6 July 2007 until 6 July 2012. It remains further undisputed between the parties that the player was loaned to various clubs in country B in June 2008, April 2009 and at the beginning of 2010. 6. The Chamber further noted that the player held that he had a just cause to terminate the contract with the club as the latter had allegedly prevented him from rendering his services to the club. In particular, the player alleged that the club had failed to send an invitation letter to the consulate in country B, which prevented him from obtaining a visa to travel back to country D. As such, the player deemed that the club violated art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations. Equally, the player held that the club had failed to pay him his full salary and that, in view of all the foregoing, he is entitled to the following amounts: - USD 120,000 as outstanding remuneration concerning January to March 2009; - USD 390,000 as outstanding remuneration concerning January to June 2011; - USD 770,000 as compensation for breach of contract; - USD 1,000,000 as damages concerning the specificity of sport. 7. Having duly considered the claim of the player, the Chamber stressed that, in view of the fact that the claim was submitted on 20 June 2011 and that the player is claiming outstanding remuneration for the period January-March 2009, it first had to establish whether it could entertain this specific request, since art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations stipulates that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. The DRC recalled that the application of the aforementioned two year time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 8. In this context, the Chamber observed that the player is of the opinion that the salaries of January to March 2009 are not time-barred since the two year time period mentioned in art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations only started running as from 19 June 2011, i.e. the date on which the player deemed that he terminated the contract. 9. The Chamber however does not agree with the player’s point of view. The Chamber finds that it is obvious that the payments claimed as outstanding salaries for 2009 corresponded to the months of January to March 2009, and that, in absence of a specific payment date, such amounts fell due at the end of the corresponding month. The Chamber is comforted in its decision by the content of the player’s letter dated 16 March 2009, in which he stated that: “Club C has not paid the player his last three salary, which shows once again, total disrespect towards the player. This fact should also be a sole argument to extinguish the player’s contract.” As such, already in March 2009 the player deemed that the club had been in default of its payment obligations for the period of January to March 2009. Therefore, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that the event giving rise to the dispute in relation to the salaries of January, February and March 2009, is the alleged non-payment of those salaries by the end of each month. 10. As a consequence, and taking into account that the claim of the player was lodged in front of FIFA on 20 June 2011 only, the Chamber finds that it cannot enter into the player’s claim for the salaries of January to March 2009 as it is barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. Thus, the Chamber held that this part of the player’s claim is inadmissible. 11. In continuation, and turning its attention to the termination of the contract, the members of the Chamber noted that the main issue in the matter at stake relates to the player not returning to the club in the beginning of 2011, after his loan to Club N ended on 31 December 2010. In this respect, whereas the player argues that he could not return to country D since the club did not provide him with an invitation letter to obtain a visa, the club denies such allegations stressing that, in fact, the player never applied for a visa and was thus never denied a visa. According to the club, an invitation letter is not a necessary prerequisite to obtain a visa. Equally, the club held that player failed to prove that under country D’s legislation the existence of a contract with a country D’s entity was not sufficient for the issuance of a visa. The player however vehemently denies the club’s allegations and asserts that citizens from country B had to apply for a visa and that an invitation letter was required. 12. In this framework, the Chamber first of all referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations which stipulates, inter alia, that the validity of a contract may not be made subject to the grant of a work permit. In this respect, the members of the Chamber stated that it is, in principle, the club’s responsibility to undertake all appropriate steps to duly acquire a work permit (and a visa) for the player, not only prior to the conclusion of an employment contract but also during the term of such employment contract. 13. The Chamber however acknowledges that in the present matter, and as outlined above, the player and club have conflicting positions in relation to the need of an invitation letter, which was - or was not - a prerequisite for the issuance of the player’s visa. In this respect, the Chamber noted that it is not disputed between the parties that the player did need a visa to return to country D. 14. At this stage, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to refer to the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Having considered all the documentation provided by the parties, the Chamber finds that none of the parties has provided sufficient documentation in order to unambiguously prove whether or not an invitation letter was indeed needed in order for the player to obtain a visa. As such, the Chamber concluded that both parties failed to substantiate their position in relation to this particular aspect. 15. However, notwithstanding the above and when examining the overall circumstances of the present matter, the Chamber finds that the behavior of the club in relation to the visa issue and the return of the player cannot be considered as the behavior of a club that was genuinely interested in the services of the player. 16. In coming to this conclusion, the Chamber deems it first of all fundamental to point out that the player’s visa issues in 2011 had been preceded by an almost identical situation in 2009 when the player had repeatedly requested for an invitation letter and his return to country D was delayed. It has remained undisputed that in 2009 the club issued an invitation letter to the player and that he, eventually, obtained a visa and returned to country D in the middle of April 2009. The Chamber finds that, under the given circumstances and with the 2009 visa problems in mind, the club could have reasonably be expected to have given clear and unambiguous instructions to the player when his loan with Club N came to an end in December 2010. In this context, the Chamber stressed that the club did not provide any documentation that it informed the player of the formalities for him to return to country D, for example instructions that the player merely had to apply to the consulate to obtain a visa and that the requirements had changed in 2011. 17. In this framework, the Chamber also underlined that the club had not contacted the player informing him of the exact return date to the club or of the fact that the club was organising a training camp in country R and country L in the beginning of 2011. The Chamber took note of the club’s argument that the player did not need a visa for country R and country L in 2011 and that, therefore, his absence from work was in any case not justified, submitting extracts of its website confirming that a training camp took place in said countries. The Chamber however does not believe that it is the player’s obligation to consult the club’s website in order to find out whether a club is having a training camp outside its normal location. To the contrary, considering the particularities of the present matter, in particular the fact that the player was loaned to various clubs from country B in 3 consecutive years, the Chamber concludes that it was the club’s obligation to explicitly inform the player of the relevant training camps and his required attendance. 18. Equally, the Chamber finds that the club’s argumentation in relation to why it did issue invitation letters for the players “Player I” and “Player K” not convincing. 19. In addition, the Chamber concludes that it can be proven that the player notified the club in February 2011 of the fact that he had not yet received an invitation letter. The Chamber is of the opinion that it could have reasonably be expected from the club to answer said notifications and to clearly and unambiguously inform the player that no invitation letter was required in order to obtain a visa, if this was indeed the case. 20. As a result, the Chamber concurs that, given the particularities of this specific matter and after an overall appreciation of all the relevant elements, the contract was terminated at the club’s fault at the end of February 2011 by not showing a genuine interest in the player’s services. 21. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the club terminated the employment contract without just cause in February 2011 and that, consequently, the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact. 22. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by the club. 23. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the club must fulfill its obligations as per 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 amount of USD 130,000, consisting of the monthly salaries of January and February 2011. 24. Furthermore, and considering the player’s claim for interest, the Chamber also ruled that the club must pay 5% interest on the outstanding remuneration as from the relevant due dates. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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 until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to USD 965,000 (i.e. 3 months of the 2010/2011 season (USD 195,000) and USD 770,000 for the 2011/2012 season) and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 29. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player had found new employment with the club from country B, Club T, on 11 May 2012 where he would earn the amount of 1,244 during the period of May and June 2012, which corresponds to approximately USD 632. 30. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, the remuneration as indicated in the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 31. What is more, the Chamber found it important to outline that although it had been established that the contract had been terminated at the club’s fault, it deemed that the player could also have done more in order to save the employment relationship between the parties. Equally, and considering that the player only found new employment in May 2012, the Chamber determined that it would be fair and reasonable to further mitigate the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 32. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 480,000 to the player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract. 33. In addition, taking into account the player’s request, the Chamber decided that the club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation for breach of contract as of the date on which the claim was lodged until the date of effective payment. 34. Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the player’s claim pertaining to the specificity of sport in absence of any further substantiated argumentation. 35. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted, insofar as it is admissible. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 130,000, plus 5% interest until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2011 on the amount of USD 65,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2011 on the amount of USD 65,000. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 480,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 20 June 2011 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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 Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives