F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2018-2019) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 25 October 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 October 2018,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (Country Y), Chairman (did not take part in the deliberations)

Stefano La Porta (Italy), member

Muzammil Bin Mohamed (Singapore), member

Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member

Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player Z, Country Y,

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the club,

Club X, Country W,

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 23 June 2017, the player of Country Y, Player Z (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or the player) and the club of Country W, Club X (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or the club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 22 June 2017 until 31 December 2019.

2. According to article 5 of the contract, the player was entitled, inter alia, to the following benefits:

a. “From 22 June 2017 until 31 December 2017

Annual salary: 1,300,000 […] Euros net

Winning bonus of each official match:3000 euros net

Draw Bonus of each official match:1000 euros net

Goal bonus:

6 goals: 30,000 euro net

12 goals: 60,000 euro net

18 goals: 90,000 euro net

Per goal assist: 1000 euro net

Two sets of international return business class air tickets each season (between Country W and the Country Y)

All the above bonuses are not accumulative and applicable to all contractual years and will be paid after one month achieving the bonus.”

b. “From 01 January 2018 until 31 December 2019

Annual salary: 2,600,000 […] Euros net

Winning bonus of each official match: 3000 euros net

Draw Bonus of each official match: 1000 euros net

Goal bonus:

First position 150,000 euro net

Second position 80,000 euro net

Third position 40,000 euro net

Per goal assist: 1000 euro net per goal

Two sets of international return business class air tickets each season (between Country W and the Country Y)”

3. Article 6 paragraph 2 of the contract further establishes the following:

“In the event of any working injury or illness during the contract, Party B [the player] shall accept treatment as demanded by Party A [the club], including accepting treatment after training in the Party A’s training center. Party B must be prepared to notify Party A of his state of health at any time.”

4. According to article 8 paragraph 5 of the contract, “Party A shall provide Party B training law field and other training facilities up to the standards set forth by Federation of Country W.”

5. Article 8 paragraph 6 of the contract further stipulates that “Party A shall provide Party B with transport, accommodation and other related expenses in connection with trainings, playing matches and other activities arranged by Party A.”

6. Furthermore, article 8 paragraph 7 of the contract provides that “during the contractual period, Party A shall provide Party B with treatment arrangement and expenses and other related expenses arising from Party B’s working injuries and diseases.”

7. Pursuant to article 8 paragraph 8 of the contract the average working hours, “including training, playing matches, learning, meetings and other activities, etc.” shall be no more than 8 hours a day.

8. Finally, in article 12 of the contract the parties stipulate that, “during the contractual period, if Party B cancel or terminate the contract by himself without the permission of Party A, Party B shall pay Party A 5,000,000 Euros (five million euros) as compensation.”

9. On 20 October 2017, the player, via his lawyer, sent the club an email, requesting the permission of the club to return to Country Y to consult with his lawyer in person, with a view to “find a solution that is respectful of the Club’s position and allows Player Z and the Club to move forward”.

10. After further correspondence between the club and the player, on 25 October 2017, the player sent another letter to the club, this time stating that the club breached the employment contract and that he is entitled to terminate the contract. The letter further said that “the player therefore intends within the next 14 days to terminate his employment contract under the doctrine of “just cause”.

11. On 20 November 2017, the club received a letter from the player’s representative, informing it that “due to breaches to his employment contract” as detailed in his previous letter of 25 October 2017, “Player Z is entitled to terminate his employment.” In particular, the player mentions that “the causes of these breaches have been as result of the lack of provision by the club of the following: 1. Adequate training facilities, 2. Adequate transport, 3. Adequate medical staff, 4. Adequate rehabilitation programme to recover from any injuries, 5. Ensuring the player works for an average of no more than 8 hours a day. […] However, without prejudice to the player’s right to terminate the employment contract on the grounds laid out above or bring proceedings via FIFA or CAS [the player suggests that they] try to find a solution that it is in the mutual best interest of the parties, not least to avoid adverse publicity”.

12. On 27 November 2017, the player sent a letter to the club informing it that “Given your action of completely ignoring the contractual position you are in, we wish to inform you that we are petitioning FIFA and the Federation of Country W to inform them that we consider your actions to be a breach of Player Z’s contract resulting in the contract being terminated and as such the full value of the contract is now payable.”

13. On 29 November 2017, the club sent the player correspondence insisting on the player’s return on 4 December 2017. The player, however, did not return to his club.

14. On 14 December 2017, the club asked the player’s lawyer for a clarification on the letter sent on 27 November 2017, as to whether the player had terminated his contract or if he was considering to do it. Furthermore, the club points outs that the player is “still under contract with us and we are still paying his wages. He was due back at the club on 4 December for team pre-season, but has failed to return. This is a clear breach of his contract”.

15. On 22 December 2017, the player replied to the club stating: “We are finding it difficult to understand how you are confused by our correspondence. Our email of 25 October 2017 made our client’s position clear. We outlined your multiple breaches of contract upon which our client has a clear right to terminate his contract with the club under the doctrine of “just cause.” The player further stated, that he “has reason to believe that certain senior officials at the Club have personally profited from his transfer”.

16. On 4 January 2018, the player’s representative sent the club a letter arguing that “this course of action completely ignores the breach of contract as outlined to you on 25 October 2017 and also the allegations surrounding the corruption and match-fixing that were raised to you in our letter to you dated 22 December 2017.”

17. On 5 January 2018, the player’s representative referred to his previous letters and reinforced that “we believe that your actions amount to a breach of contract and that as a result our Client will not be returning to the Club as he no longer has a contractual obligation to do so”.

18. On 11 January 2018, the player’s representative sent a letter to the club, claiming that “these actions constitute breaches of his [the player’s] working contract and have therefore caused its termination. The letter further mentions that “we have also expressed our concerns in correspondence to you of match-fixing and corruption that has taken place during our client’s employment with the Club. These concerns have so far gone unanswered”.

19. On 19 January 2018, the club sent a letter to the player denying all his allegations of breach. The club further stated that “the behaviour that the player did not return to the team when the team assembled belongs to termination of the contract without good cause. […] Therefore, we require Player Z to pay the liquidated damages of EUR 5,000,000.00 to the club”.

20. On 1 March 2018, the club sent a letter to the player informing him that the club has cancelled his registration.

21. On 1 March 2018, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club for breach of contract, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 5,308,334 net as compensation for breach of contract, being EUR 108,334 for the month of December 2017 and EUR 5,200,000 for the period from 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2019. In addition, the player requested unquantified further compensation “for loss of benefits under the contract”.

22. Finally, the player requested to impose sporting sanctions on the club and that the club had to pay the costs of the proceedings.

23. In his claim, the player argued that he “is entitled to terminate his employment contract with the club for “just cause” […] and/or the Club has terminated Player Z employment contract without just cause”.

24. According to the player, the club encouraged him and/or his teammates to become involved in match-fixing and/or to otherwise under-perform in matches “on various occasions”. As an example, he explained, that in a match on 12 August 2017 between the club and Club U, the club’s coach instructed the players that they “shouldn’t put much effort into the game as they are going for promotion and it will be good for the city if they are able to be promoted to the Super League”.

25. The player further claims, that in two different games he has scored a goal which was disallowed for “no good reason”. According to the player, he received always the same answer, whenever he raised his concerns: “This is Country W”. The player also named a game between Club V against the club on 22 July 2017, which was lost 5:1 as “nobody was trying”.

26. According to the player, there were multiple other breaches of the contract:

a. The club insisted that the player used “broken training equipment” in order to recover from the player’s most recent injury.

b. Even though the club has provided the player with transport, it has caused “significant inconvenience due to the delays caused by the transport arranged by the Club. It is most certainly not befitting of my [the player’s] status as a player”.

c. The club continuously failed to provide with an adequate standard of treatment. According to the player, the treatment he received during his most recent injury, was “resulting in an increased level of pain and an increase in the severity of the injury. In addition, on 23rd October 2017 I [the player] reported for treatment for the injury and was not treated by any medical staff at the Club as none were present”.

d. The Club was obliged to ensure that the players working hours will not average more than 8 hours a day. However, according to the player, on 23 October 2017, the player was required to work for a total of 9 hours and 15 minutes. “This is significantly more than the agreed average of 8 hours and as such the Club are in breach of this section of the employment contract”.

27. In its reply to the claim, the club rejected all the player’s allegations and, on 19 June 2018, filed a counterclaim against the player for breach of contract. The club requested that the player shall pay compensation in the amount of EUR 5,000,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 November 2017 or an amount determined by FIFA as compensation for breach of contract plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 28 November 2017. Furthermore, the club requested a 4-month restriction on playing in official matches to be imposed on the player.

28. The club claimed that the player started to show unhappiness in his new team after only a few weeks and that “very soon, it became clear that the Player and his lawyer started to look for a “way out” of his valid and binding employment contract

29. The club continued by stating that the player made up new allegations “literally with every new letter”. According to the club, this “culminated in the sudden, unilateral termination by the Player of his employment contract on 27 November 2017”. In regards to the training facilities, the club argued that “under the Federation of Country W Admission Regulations, the Federation of Country W scrutinizes the training facilities of each club each year against the standards and requirements set forth by the Federation of Country W, before a club is admitted to participate in a league organized by the Federation of Country W. The Club passes all these tests without any problem each year, which confirms that all its facilities meet the requirements established by the Federation of Country W.” The club further stated that the player failed to make any specific remarks on how the club failed its contractual obligations in regards to the training facilities.

30. As to the transport service, the club stated that it has “three exclusive drivers and three luxury cars at the disposal of its foreign players” and that during his stay, the player “never submitted any complaint to the Club that he would not be happy with the transport services provided to him.”

31. The club continued by rejecting the player’s allegation of an allegedly inadequate medical treatment. According to the club, “the Club paid special attention to the fitness and health of the Player and it always reacted immediately when he reported injuries or problems. The Player always received medical treatment and rehabilitation training to the highest standards.” The club further stated that the player again failed to “give any specific indication of what would allegedly have been wrong in the treatment he received.”

32. In regards of the working hours the club did not deny that the player had to work on one occasion 9 hours and 15 minutes, however it stated that “this is a rather brazen statement of a Player with a yearly salary of EUR 2,600,000.00, the allegation is also completely absurd” as the player on average, was working considerably less than 8 hours per day “and the player never made any complaints in this respect”.

33. The club finally rejected all match-fixing allegations “vehemently”. The club argued that “neither the Player nor his lawyer ever brought forward such allegations, although the Player now claims that the incidents in question allegedly occurred in July and August 2017. The club provided witness statements from current members of the club, denying any involvement with match-fixing and also questioning why this issue is brought up only now. According to the witnesses, the player never raised the issue during his time at the club.

34. In his replica and reply to the counterclaim, the player entirely reiterated the position expressed with his claim and further explained that, “the club’s case on when and how the employment contract terminated is fundamentally flawed, not based on the evidence and incoherent”. According to the player, the contract was terminated by the club by its various breaches, “such breaches being accepted as terminating the employment by Player Z on 11 January 2018 by his letter of that date” or by his claim before the DRC on 1 March 2018 “and that such termination by the Club was without just cause”. Alternatively, the contract was terminated by the player on 11 January or 1 March 2018. As last alternative, the player claims that the contract was terminated by the club on 1 March 2018, by cancelling the players registration.

35. Furthermore, the player explained, that he raised the allegations of match-fixing and corruption “on a series of occasions before the employment contract was terminated”. As evidence, he provided several WhatsApp messages with a former teammate, an adviser of his and a translator employed by the club where he voiced his concerns and some witness statements. As the club has failed to take any action in relation to the allegation, the player deems that the club breached the contract without just cause and that he was therefore entitled to terminate the contract with just cause.

36. According to the player, the match-fixing and corruption concerns were also raised during a meeting between the club and the player’s representative.

37. In addition, the player argued, that he did not report the match-fixing allegation to the Federation of Country W, as he “was a foreign player in an entirely new country. He did not speak language of Country W or have any connections with the Federation of Country W.”

38. In its duplica, the club reiterated its position and further explained that “it is totally clear that only one party ever issued a termination in this case: The player”. According to the club, “it is clearly documented that on 27 November 2017, the Player terminated the contractual relationship and that he even expressly confirmed this afterwards.” The club argued that “at the very latest, the Player unilaterally terminated his contract by refusing to return to the Club on 4 December 2017”.

39. The club also contested that it was agreed that the player would need to return in January 2018. In particular, it referred to the two witness statements from former players of the club that the player provided, which confirmed that they never had to return in December. The club stated that the two players “simply did not return by 4 December 2017 because one of them was injured at the time […], while the other player […] was at that time negotiating the termination of his employment contract with the Club.”

40. In regards to the match-fixing allegations, the club argued that “all that the player presents is, literally, a pile of incoherent WhatsApp messages, which have no evidentiary value whatsoever.” The club also stated that “at all times, it is simply the player alleging towards his friends or advisors that he believes in his manipulation theories”.

41. Furthermore, the club argued that “The Player also repeats his assertion that somehow, he would have raised his match-fixing theories to the Club prior to terminating his contract. The player claims that then, the Club failed to “properly investigate” these accusations and that this would have justified the Player’s unilateral breach”. The Club further stated that “not a single letter contains, for example, a statement as follows: “My client has reason to believe that matches were manipulated. […] However, this is what the Player and/or his lawyer would certainly have done if they had genuinely had the concerns, as they are pretending today”. As to the meeting of 9 November 2017, the club argued that “the player claims that on 9 November 2017, his lawyer raised the “match-fixing concerns” with the Club. Yet, on 20 November 2017, i.e. only a few days later, this very same lawyer sent a letter to the Club, summarizing the contents of the 9 November 2017 meeting. This letter, however, does not contain a single reference to match-fixing (!).”

42. The club provided written witness statements of its Head Coach and its translator, which denied all the player’s claims regarding the instructions to “underperform”.

43. Finally, the club questioned why the player or his representative never reported their concerns to the Federation of Country W, “in particular – as the Player claims – after the Club allegedly failed to take action. […] The Player tries to make the FIFA DRC believe that although he had very serious concerns about match-fixing, it was somehow “impossible” for him to report this to the Federation of Country W. […] The Player’s lawyer was accordingly very well capable of reporting certain matters to the Federation of Country W. […] With the support of such an experienced lawyer, it is simply not possible for the Player to hide behind the excuse that he was “a foreign player in an entirely new country” and that he “did not speak language of Country W or have any connections with the Federation of Country W. For this reason also, the excuses of the Player why he never made any report to the Federation of Country W are not credible”.

44. After a request from FIFA to the AFC to investigate the alleged match-fixing, the Federation of Country W reported on 12 September 2018 that “it is concluded that there’s no possibility for the club to fix the mentioned matches”. According to the Federation of Country W, it consulted relevant materials, such as referee reports, monitored media reports and comments and investigated Club X.

45. Finally, after having been requested to do so, the player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed since the termination of the contract.

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 matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 March 2018. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2018; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules)

2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2016 and 2018; hereinafter: Regulations) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an player of Country Y and a club of Country W.

3. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 19 October 2018, by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the Chairman of the DRC, Mr Geoff Thompson, refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that he has the same nationality as the player. Thus, the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of four members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations.

4. Furthermore, the DRC analyzed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (editions 2016 and 2018) and also considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 1 March 2018, the 2018 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

5. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the analysis of the substance of the dispute at stake. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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.

6. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that on 23 June 2017, the player and the club had entered into an employment contract set to expire on 31 December 2019.

7. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the parties disagreed about the date of the termination and about the party who terminated the contract. In this regard, the Chamber deemed that, in order to start the analysis of the present case, it would first have to establish, based on the documentation on file, the specific date of termination of the contract as well as which party has terminated it.

8. While analysing the documentation on file provided by the parties as well as their respective argumentation, the members of the Chamber focused their attention on a letter sent by the player to the club on 27 November 2017 and its specific wording: “Given your action of completely ignoring the contractual position you are in, we wish to inform you that we are petitioning FIFA and the Federation of Country W to inform them that we consider your actions to be a breach of Player Z’s contract resulting in the contract being terminated and as such the full value of the contract is now payable.” (emphasis added). Based on the wording of the aforementioned letter of the player, the Chamber had to conclude that the player terminated the contract on 27 November 2017.

9. Having established the termination of the contract by the player on 27 November 2017, the members of the Chamber continued their analysis of the substance of the case by noting that while the player on the one hand considers that he had had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract, the club on the other hand, sustains that, the player terminated the contract without just cause.

10. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the player considers having had just cause to terminate the contract, based, essentially, on the following allegations: (i) that the club provided him with “broken training equipment” in order to recover from his most recent injury; (ii) that the club provided him with inconvenient transportation; (iii) that the club continuously failed to provide him with an adequate standard of injury treatment; (iv) that the club failed to comply with the contractually agreed working hours, as on 23 October 2017 he had to work for 9 hours and 15 minutes, exceeding the contractual maximum of 8 hours per day; and (v) that the club was allegedly involved in match-fixing and corruption.

11. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to analyse individually each of the reasons given by the player to justify the premature termination of the contract on 27 November 2017, as well as the counterarguments of the club and the entire documentation on file as provided by both parties. At this point, the Chamber specifically reminded the parties of the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party deriving a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

12. Regarding the player’s first allegation that the club provided him with broken training equipment, the Chamber noted, in line with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, that the player failed to provide any type of substantial evidence for this allegation. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the club, in turn, presented a statement issued by the Federation of Country W, which confirmed that the club’s facilities meet the requirements and quality standards established by said Association (cf. point I.29 above).

13. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the player’s allegations regarding the allegedly inconvenient transportation and the non-compliance with the contractual limitation of his working hours, on one specific day. In this respect, the Chamber not only noted that the player did not provide any evidence of having ever raised these complaints prior to the termination of the contract, but it also concurred that such allegations by no means could be considered as severe enough to constitute a termination with just cause, especially considering the ultima ratio nature of such measure.

14. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the premature termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. A premature termination of an employment contract can always only be an ultima ratio.

15. As to the player’s argument that the club continuously failed to provide him with an adequate standard of injury treatment, the Chamber, while once again referring to the wording of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the principle of burden of proof, took note of the fact that the player not only failed to provide the DRC with substantial evidence of such allegations, but also did not give any details as to how he deems that the club would have failed to meet the obligation to provide him with adequate medical treatment. Thus, the Chamber was of the opinion that such general argument per se did not grant the player a just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract.

16. The Chamber then moved on to the player’s main argument for a breach of contract by the club, namely the club’s alleged involvement in match-fixing, corruption and its failing to deal with said issues. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the player provided some witness statements, including his own and one from his legal representative, as well as several whatsapp messages with a former teammate, an adviser of his and a translator employed by the club, where he raised his concerns. The Chamber wished to emphasize that, according to the player, the player and/or the player’s representative, has confronted the club several times and due to the failure of dealing with said issues, the player had just cause to terminate the contract.

17. The Chamber then turned its attention to the arguments of the club and acknowledged that the latter rejected any of the aforementioned allegations as well as the substantiality of the documentation presented by the player, consisting mainly of personal statements and his own personal concerns raised with certain individuals. Furthermore, the Chamber noted, that the club argued that it was never confronted with any of these match-fixing and/or corruption allegations prior to the termination of the contract by from the player.

18. In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged a report provided by the Federation of Country W, which concluded that there’s no possibility for the club to have fixed the mentioned matches”.

19. In light of the aforementioned and of the principle of burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber stressed that it was up to the player to provide compelling evidence demonstrating that the club was involved in match-fixing and/or corruption and that he actually confronted the club in this regard prior to the termination of the contract, as claimed by the player.

20. To this end, the DRC concluded that the player failed to provide any evidence or convincing indications that would confirm any of his match-fixing and/or corruption allegations. Furthermore, in regards of the player’s position that he and/or his representative confronted the club about the match-fixing and/or corruption prior to the termination of the contract, the Chamber noted that the player also failed to provide any evidence other than some handwritten notes made by the player’s representative, allegedly pertaining to a meeting with the club on 9 November 2017.

21. Finally, the Chamber wished to point out that, in fact, it is indeed questionable why the player’s representative failed to mention any match-fixing or corruption allegations in the letter sent to the club on 20 November 2017. The Chamber noted, that the letter inter alia refers to the points discussed in the meeting on 9 November 2017, during which the player’s representative allegedly confronted the club with the match-fixing and corruption allegations. However, having analysed said letter, the Chamber could not find any word regarding corruption and/or match-fixing.

22. Based on the aforementioned analysis, the Chamber had no option other than to conclude that the player had terminated the contract unilaterally and without just cause on 27 November 2017. Consequently, the members of the DRC concurred that the claim of the player against the club must be rejected.

23. Having established that the player did not have a just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract with the club on 27 November 2017, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of such breach of contract committed by the player.

24. Having stated the above, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract due by the player to the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly reiterated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract(s), the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years as well as the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. The DRC recalled that the list of objective criteria is not exhaustive and that the broad scope of criteria indicated tends to ensure that a just and fair amount of compensation is awarded to the prejudiced party.

25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the relevant employment contract between the player and the club contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation for breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber reasoned that the employment contract did contain a clause regarding compensation to be awarded in case of breach of contract, namely article 12, which stipulates that “during the contractual period, if Party B [player] cancel or terminate the contract by himself without the permission of Party A [club], Party B shall pay Party A 5,000,000 Euros (five million euros) as compensation.”

26. In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that article 12 only entitled the club to receive compensation from the player in case of breach of contract by the latter. Consequently, the members of the Chamber pointed out that said clause cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of the amount of compensation, as it lack reciprocity and entails unbalanced advantages for the parties to the contract, in case of early termination.

27. Consequently, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation due to the club by the player in the present matter had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this regard, the DRC 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, as well as the Chamber’s specific knowledge of the world of football and its experience gained throughout the years.

28. Consequently, in order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the club in the present case, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and the new contract(s), which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. In this context, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasize that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the DRC to take into consideration both the existing contract and the new contract(s) in the calculation of the amount of compensation, thus enabling the Chamber to gather indications as to the economic value attributed to a player by his former club.

29. In this regard, the DRC established, on the one hand, that the employment contract between the club and the player, signed on 23 June 2017, had been set to expire on 31 December 2019. The player had undisputedly received his salary until and including November 2017, entailing that the total value of his employment agreement with the club for the remaining contractual period of 25 months is composed of the amount of EUR 108,334 for the month December 2017, as well as the amount of EUR 2,600,000 for the year 2018 and the amount of EUR 2,600,000 for the year 2019, in a total amount of EUR 5,308,334.

30. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged that the player has not signed any new contract with any other club since the termination of the employment contract with Club X. Furthermore, from the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Chamber noted that the club did not pay a transfer fee for the player, as he was out of a contract when he was hired by the club. In addition, the members of the Chamber took note of the fact that the club de-registered the player about 3 months after the termination of the contract and did not take any legal measures with regard to his termination, up until the moment it received the player’s claim, lodging then a counterclaim against him together with its reply.

31. Taking into account the aforementioned factors as well as the “specificity of sport”, equally mentioned art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player shall pay the club compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 650,000, which equals to an average of 3 monthly salaries based on the salary for the years 2018 and 2019. The Chamber deemed this to be a fair and proportionate amount of compensation, considering the aforementioned particularities of the case at hand.

32. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations as well as of the specificities of the matter at hand and the fact that the club failed to specifically quantify any actual damage deriving from the early termination of the contract by the player, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the amount of EUR 650,000 to the club as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 June 2018 until the date of effective payment.

33. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting the claim of the player and partially accepting the counterclaim of the club.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player Z, is rejected.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club X, is partially accepted.

3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 650,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 June 2018 until the date of effective payment.

4. In the event that the amount due to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 3. is not paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

5. Any further counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.

6. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 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:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal Officer

Encl. CAS directives