F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision19 April 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 April 2018,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), Member

Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), Member

Daan de Jong (the Netherlands), Member

Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), Member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 28 July 2015, the club from Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent / Counter-Claimant or club) and the player from Country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant / Counter-Respondent or player), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from its date of signature until 31 May 2017.

2. According to article 3 of the contract, the player was entitled to receive from the club:

a) For the 2015/2016 sporting season: a down payment of EUR 100,000 on 7 July 2015 and 10 monthly instalments of EUR 12,000 each, payable the last day of each month (i.e. from August 2015 to May 2016);

b) For the 2016/2017 sporting season: a down payment of EUR 66,000 on 1 August 2016 and 10 monthly instalments of EUR 15,400 each, payable the last day of each month (i.e. from August 2016 to May 2017).

Furthermore, “If [the club] will take place in Super League for 2016/2017”, the club would pay the player:

- a down payment of EUR 150,000 as follows: EUR 65,000 on 31 July 2016 and EUR 85,000 on 31 August 2016;

- 9 monthly instalments of EUR 20,000 each, payable the last day of each month (i.e. from September 2016 to May 2017).

3. Article 3 of the contract further established that the player will receive:

- EUR 15,000 in case he has been lined up for 25 matches (or more) of the PTT 1 League or Super League;

- EUR 15,000 in case he has scored 10 goals in the above-mentioned matches during the season;

- EUR 1,000 for every game he has been lined up;

“If the club participates in the Super League for 2016/2017”, the player will receive:

- EUR 30,000 in case he has been lined up for 25 matches (or more) in the Super League;

- EUR 30,000 in case he has scored 10 goals in the above-mentioned matches during the season.

4. Pursuant to article 3.4 of the contract, “the club also agrees to buy 3 round trip flight tickets (Country B-Country D) for the player.”

5. Article 3.5 of the contract states that the “Player shall be entitled to terminate his contract with the club unilaterally if the club delays to pay the receivables of the player for more than 30 days after due time.”

6. On 3 December 2015, the player sent a first default notice to the club requesting the latter to pay two monthly salaries (i.e. October and November 2015) in the amount of EUR 24,000 as well as appearance bonuses within 10 days, referring to art. 3.5 of the contract.

7. According to the player, on 10 December 2015, the club proceeded with the payment of his salary of October 2015 in the amount of EUR 12,000.

8. On 28 December 2015, the player sent a second default notice to the club asking for the payment of his salary of November 2015 plus the appearance bonuses, granting the club a deadline of 2 days within which to pay.

9. On the same day, the club published news on its website announcing the end of the cooperation with several players, including Player A, stating that they will not participate in the mid-term training camp.

10. After this announcement, the player, via “WhatsApp”, asked the club to clarify his situation, following which the club’s apparent sports director confirmed that “you are not camp roster as coachs decision. We want to release, please come to Country D or tell me a way to handle this situation.”

11. On 31 December 2015, the player informed the club that he had received most of the requested remuneration, but that EUR 2,000 in relation to his appearance bonus was still outstanding. In addition, the player informed the club that he considered the club’s announcement of the termination of his contract on its website and social media platforms a unilateral termination of the contract at the club’s initiative and that unless the club would give an explanation and public rectification within the following 24 hours, he would consider that the club confirms and endorses the contractual termination.

12. On 5 January 2016, the player sent another letter to the club pointing out that he had received no reply to his previous correspondence and requesting that the club (i) remove the publication from the website, (ii) pay the appearance bonuses relating to matches of 2 December and 21 December 2015, (iii) reimburse the travel expenses according to clause 3.4 of the contract and (iv) let the player train with the club’s first team instead of an individual training regime.

13. Following negotiations between the player’s lawyer and the club via “WhatsApp” and a final default notice dated 10 January 2016, on 12 January 2016, the player informed the club that he considered his contract terminated at the initiative of the club without just cause.

14. On 14 January 2016, the club replied to the player’s notice of termination, denying that it terminated the contract and pointing out that there was no official decision in this regard. The club further asked the player to return to the club by 16 January 2016.

15. On 14 January 2016, the club paid the player the amount of EUR 2,000 corresponding to his appearance bonuses.

16. On 1 February 2016, the player signed an employment contract with the club from Country B, Club E, valid as from its signature date until 15 June 2016, providing a total salary of EUR 20,000. The player pointed out that he did not receive any salary from this new club as it went bankrupt and was disaffiliated from the Football Federation of Country B.

17. On 17 July 2016, the player entered into an employment contract with the club from Country B, Club F, valid as from its signature date until 30 June 2017, providing for a total remuneration of 352,000 in the currency of Country B.

18. On 19 January 2016, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA maintaining that the club is liable for breach of contract without just cause requesting to be awarded the following :

- Payment of salary in the amount of EUR 4,645 corresponding to 12 days of January 2016 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 12 January 2016 until the date of effective payment;

- Compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 275,355 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 December 2015 or, alternatively, as of 12 January 2016, until the date of effective payment;

- In the alternative, in case the club is promoted to the first tier, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 405,355 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 December 2015 or, alternatively, as of 12 January 2016, until the date of effective payment;

- Payment of the amount of EUR 194.95 corresponding to a flight ticket from Country B to Country D as well as the amount of 1,120.42 in the currency of Country D corresponding to flight tickets from Country D to Country B for 2 persons.

The player further asked that a ban on registering new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration periods be imposed on the club.

19. More in particular, the player considered that the public announcement published on the club’s website and social media platforms, which the club never removed or rectified in spite of his request, demonstrated its clear intention to terminate the contract and its explicit non-interest in his services.

20. In continuation, the player argued that despite his will to fulfil his contractual obligations, the club excluded him from the team without valid reason and, consequently, denied his right to an effective employment and to being occupied by exercising the activity he had been hired for.

21. The player further indicated that, following his refusal to accept the club’s proposal to terminate the contract with no compensation, the club handed him an unclear individual training programme with no indication of the place nor hours of the training sessions. In this regard, the player submitted a video and some pictures allegedly showing that the player was abandoned and alone at the club’s facilities.

22. In particular, the player stressed that when he requested an explanation following his exclusion, the club informed him that it is subjected to a limitation in the registration of the number of foreign players with the Football Federation of Country D.

23. The player also pointed out that the club attempted to intimidate him to accept to waive any right to financial compensation following the termination of the contract.

24. Finally, the player argued that, according to article 3.5 of the contract, he had the right to terminate the contract, because the club was in delay of the fulfilment of its financial obligations towards him for more than 30 days and, in any way, he could not be held responsible for the termination considering that he had just cause to do so.

25. On 22 March 2016, in its reply to the claim, the club rejected the player’s arguments and lodged a counterclaim against him as well as against his new club for breach of contract without just cause requesting compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 268,000, or, alternatively, EUR 378,000.

26. The club further asked that appropriate sporting sanctions be imposed on the player and his new club.

27. The club contested the player’s argumentation, considering that the announcement published on 28 December 2015 only stated that some players would not be attending the club’s training camp in Country D due to a decision of the coach, who considered that the players concerned were lacking performance. The club insisted on the fact that it was perfectly aware that, despite the announcement, it had to fulfil its contractual obligations towards said players.

28. In addition, the club indicated that it informed the player orally about his returning date to prepare the second part of the 2015/2016 season.

29. The club considered that the player had accepted to train apart from the club’s first team, but stressed that he was not present at the club until 4 January 2016.

30. As regards the appearance bonuses, the club presented documents demonstrating that the player was entitled to receive bonuses for matches played on 23 September, 18 October, 2 December and 21 December 2015.

31. In addition, regarding the requested flight tickets, the club considered that the player already used his contractual three round trip tickets and that, consequently, the club has no obligation towards the player in this regard.

32. Moreover, the club asserted that the player violated his contractual obligations, as he left the country without the club’s permission and he did not attend the training sessions on 12, 13 and 14 January 2016.

33. The club emphasized that, on 20 January 2016, a letter was sent to the player informing him that the employment contract was still in force and asking him to return to the club by no later than 23 January 2016.

34. Finally, in support of its allegation that it considered the contract still binding on the parties, the club submitted a letter it sent to the Football Federation of Country D, in which the club rejected the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the player.

35. In his reply to the counterclaim, the player rejected the club’s assertion regarding the decision of the coach to dismiss players from the first team. In fact, the player considered that, in any case, the player’s performance does not constitute a just cause in the sense of article 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players for a club to terminate a contract.

36. The player also pointed out that the club’s position confirmed that it had violated his fundamental rights, especially by not giving him the possibility to train properly and consequently to compete with his fellow teammates in official matches.

37. Furthermore, the player denied having been informed by the club to return and resume his contractual obligations before 4 January 2016.

38. Regarding the flight ticket benefits, the player rejected the club’s submission, considering that it is acting in bad faith, especially by presenting flight reservation confirmations, which, according to the player, explicitly show that he was still entitled to flight tickets according to the contract.

39. In continuation, the player underlined that the club’s late payment of bonuses, on 14 January 2016, constituted another evidence that he was entitled to terminate the contract with just cause according to article 3.5 of the contract.

40. The player emphasized that the club maintained its abusive behaviour towards him by refusing the issuance of the ITC by the Football Federation of Country D and, consequently, forced him and his new club to request the assistance of FIFA for provisional measures.

41. The player’s new club, Club E, was invited to present its reply to the claim of the club, but it has in the interim been disaffiliated from the Football Federation of Country B.

42. After the closure of the investigation in the present matter, the player informed FIFA that the club had proposed to settle the dispute amicably by paying the amount of EUR 200,000 in four instalments.

43. Subsequently, the player informed FIFA that the club had failed to formalize the settlement agreement and asked that the proceedings continue. In particular, the player requested to take into account the EUR 200,000 settlement amount proposed by the club as a minimum in the calculation of the compensation potentially awarded.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 January 2016. Consequently, the 2015 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. article 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 2018), 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 regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 19 January 2016, the 2015 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (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, 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. Furthermore, in this context, the members of the Chamber recalled art. 9 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which provides inter alia for the following: ‘The parties shall not be authorised to supplement or amend their requests or their arguments, to produce new exhibits or to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely, after notification of the closure of the investigation.’ In this respect, the members of the Chamber decided to not take into account the unsolicited comments of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, which were submitted after the closure of the investigation phase.

6. Having said that, the Chamber recalled that the parties had signed an employment contract valid as of 28 July 2015 until 31 May 2017, in accordance with which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive, inter alia, for the 2015/2016 sporting season, an advance payment of EUR 100,000 payable on 7 July 2015 and ten monthly salaries of EUR 12,000 each, payable the last day of the month as from August 2015. In addition, according to the employment contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive an appearance fee of EUR 1,000 for each match in which he was lined-up. The members of the Chamber noted that the employment contract does not include a specific due date for payment of such appearance fees.

7. The members of the Chamber further recalled that according to art. 3.5 of the employment contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to terminate the employment contract if the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was in delay of payment of his receivables for more than 30 days.

8. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that, on 12 January 2016, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent notified the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that he considered the employment contract as having been terminated at the latter’s initiative without just cause.

9. The DRC noted that according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for breach of contract without just cause, by failing to pay remuneration that allegedly had been outstanding for more than 30 days and by excluding him from the team despite several default notices, to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not reacted. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further considered that by means of a publication on its website and social media platforms, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant demonstrated that it wished to terminate the employment relationship and that it was no longer interested in his services. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asked to be awarded, inter alia, payment of EUR 4,645 as salary for twelve days of January 2016 as well as compensation for breach of contract and reimbursement of flight tickets.

10. Subsequently, the DRC noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, for its part, claimed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract without just cause, denying that it had the intention to terminate the contract. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent left the country without permission and only returned on 4 January 2016. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further held that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had accepted to train separately from the club’s first team and that he had left the country without its authorisation and was absent from training on 12, 13, and 14 January 2016. Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant rejected the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and asked that the latter be ordered to pay compensation for breach of contract without just cause to it.

11. Having established the above, the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause 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.

12. Having said that, the Chamber took note that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had remitted the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salaries for October and November 2015 with considerable delay in December 2015, whereas two appearance bonuses amounting to EUR 2,000 had remained unpaid until 14 January 2016, date on which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant proceeded with the relevant payment, i.e. after the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had notified the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the termination of the employment contract.

13. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the further circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment contract in the case at hand. Indeed, the Chamber acknowledged the documentation provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in support of his argumentation, which, apart from the various above-mentioned default notices, includes, inter alia, the aforementioned public announcement by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and a print-out of “WhatsApp” communications between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the existence or contents of which have not been contested by the latter.

14. With respect to the aforementioned public announcement, the Chamber noted that, on 28 December 2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant announced, inter alia, that “Considering that we have ended cooperation with our players … and Player A, they will not be included in our mid-term training camp.”

15. The members of the Chamber further took note of the communication exchanged between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant via “WhatsApp”, in particular, that in reply to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request for a clarification of his situation with the club, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant replied that he is “… not camp roster as coachs decision. We want to release, please come to Country D or tell me a way to handle this situation.”

16. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that in his third default notice, dated 31 December 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent inter alia referred to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s public announcement and its alleged subsequent confirmation that it wanted to release the player from his duties, which he considered to constitute a unilateral termination of the employment contract by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant without just cause. In such notice, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the club to provide him with a reasonable explanation along with a public statement denying the termination of his contract within 24 hours or he would consider that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant confirms and endorses the contractual termination.

17. In addition, the DRC noted that in the absence of a reaction from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to his notice of 31 December 2015, on 5 January 2016, in an attempt to solve the matter amicably, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent once more asked the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to rectify the termination announcement, to pay the outstanding bonuses and travel expenses and furthermore to allow him to join the first team programme within 24 hours or he would consider the employment contract as terminated by the club without just cause. In his notice of 5 January 2016, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent further highlighted that he was not allowed to join the team at the training camp and that he was asked to undertake an individual training programme, having been given as a reason that there was a limited number of foreigners in the first 25 player list, of which he was no part.

18. Moreover, the members of the Chamber noted from the ensuing “WhatsApp” conversation between the lawyer of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the latter confirmed that the player was not included in the limited number of foreigners in the first 25 players list and that he would be given an individual training programme. In addition, it was noted that the parties had not been able to find an amicable agreement and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant indicated that the player can “stay and practice”, which was not acceptable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

19. On 10 January 2016, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent once more wrote to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referring to his previous notices, pointing out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had still not rectified or denied the information in its public statements. He further highlighted that he was informed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that he can keep practicing at the club’s premises or leave without compensation. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent indicated that he was training with a non-qualified coach with whom he could not communicate in English. In this notice, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asked that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant immediately remedy this situation or he would conclude that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has terminated the contract being no longer interested in continuing the employment relationship with him. Subsequently, on 12 January 2016, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed that he considered the employment contract terminated at the initiative of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant without just cause.

20. In continuation, the DRC recalled that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleged that it had no intention to terminate the employment contract and that, in fact, it was the Claimant / Counter-Respondent who is to be held liable for the termination of the employment contract without just cause due to his departure without permission and by not participating in training on 12, 13, and 14 January 2016.

21. In this regard, the Chamber, first of all, pointed out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has not presented any documentation in support of its allegation that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was to return to the club prior to 4 January 2016. What is more, the members of the Chamber took into account that the absence from training of the player as from 12 January to 14 January 2016 invoked by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and in relation with which it presented public notary reports coincides with the period of time as of which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered the employment contract as having been terminated by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant without just cause as per his notice dated 12 January 2016.

22. Furthermore, the Chamber equally noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not contest the allegations of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent regarding his exclusion from the first team and his assignment to individual trainings. What is more, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant even explained to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that he was not included in the limited number of foreigners in the first 25 players list and that he would be given an individual training programme.

23. With regard to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s position that it had no intention to terminate the employment contract, the Chamber wished to point out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had announced as reason for the exclusion of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent from the training camp that “Considering that we have ended cooperation with … Player A … ” and that it added that We want to release, please come to Country D or tell me a way to handle this situation” when it referred to the player’s exclusion from the team in the “WhatsApp” communication (emphasis added). The members of the Chamber deemed that such statements in contradiction with to the position expressed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant during the proceedings that it had no intention to terminate the employment contract. Indeed, the Chamber considered that such statements indicate that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had decided to end the employment relationship with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

24. In addition, the Chamber emphasised that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has not replied to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s various default notices, in particular, it had not provided the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with a clarification on his contractual situation in spite of his specific requests in this sense. In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that, in fact, only on 14 January 2016 did the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reply to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with a clear written statement that it had not decided to terminate the contract, i.e. after the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s notice dated 12 January 2016.

25. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that it could not uphold the argumentation of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and decided to reject the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim.

26. Furthermore, in view of the aforementioned facts, the DRC was of the firm opinion that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had well-founded reasons to believe that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was no longer interested in maintaining an employment relationship with him and to continue making use of his services for the remainder of the contractual duration.

27. As a consequence of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to notify the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the termination of the employment contract on 12 January 2016 and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 12 January 2016.

28. Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination.

29. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive compensation from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

30. Prior to establishing the amount of compensation, recalling the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request to be awarded salary on a pro rata temporis basis for January 2016, the Chamber wished to underline that given that the January salary fell due on 31 January 2016 and that the employment contract is considered terminated on 12 January 2016, the January 2016 salary will be included in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

31. Having said that, the members of the Chamber firstly recalled that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

32. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. The members of the Chamber assured themselves that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

33. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized 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.

34. In order to establish the amount of compensation due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract(s), which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract(s) in the calculation of the amount of compensation.

35. Bearing in in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract as from its date of termination on 12 January 2016 until 31 May 2017. In this respect, the Chamber took into account that no evidence was presented demonstrating that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had been promoted to the Super League for the 2016-2017 season. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have received in total EUR 280,000 as remuneration had the contract been executed until its expiry date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 280,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

36. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.

37. Indeed, the Chamber took note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed two new employment contracts during the relevant period of time; the first contract with the club from Country B, Club E, valid as from 1 February 2016 until 15 June 2016, entitling him to a remuneration in the total amount of EUR 20,000. The Chamber noted that according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent he did not receive any salary from Club E as it went bankrupt. However, the Chamber considered that the amount of EUR 20,000 has to be included in the mitigation, as the Claimant / Counter-Respondent could have claimed this remuneration in the relevant bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, the DRC noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed an employment contract with the club from Country B, Club F, valid as of 17 July 2016 until 30 June 2017, and according to which he was entitled to a total remuneration of 322,667 until 31 May 2017.

38. Taking into account all the aforementioned objective elements as well as the specificities in the matter at hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 190,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

39. In addition, with regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent's request for interest, in accordance with its constant practice, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 19 January 2016, until the date of effective payment.

40. Equally, as regards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim pertaining to air tickets, on the basis of the information provided by FIFA Travel and taking into account the relevant terms of the employment contract, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of CHF 320 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for a flight ticket to return home following the termination of the employment contract.

41. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 190,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 January 2016 until the date of effective payment.

4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent / Counter-Respondent the amount of CHF 320 in regard of a flight ticket within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.

5. In the event that the aforementioned amount of CHF 320 is not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due on the amount of CHF 320 as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit until the date of effective payment.

6. In the event that the aforementioned amounts and interest due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

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. 58 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

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl.: CAS directives