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 11 April 2019

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 April 2019,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Alexandra Gómez (Uruguay), member

Stefano Sartori (Italy), member

Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member

Muzammil bin Mohamed (Singapore), member

on the matter between the club,

Club A, Country B

as First Claimant / Respondent II

and the player,

Player C, Country D,

as Second Claimant / Respondent I

and the club,

Club E, Country F,

as Respondent III

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 3 July 2017, the Player of Country D, Player C (hereinafter: Second Claimant / Respondent I or the player) and the Club of Country B, Club A (hereinafter: First Claimant / Respondent II, club or Club A) concluded an employment contract, valid for the period between 3 July 2017 and 30 June 2019, as well as an addendum to said contract (hereinafter: the addendum).

2. According to the employment contract and the addendum, the player was entitled to receive inter alia a monthly salary of EUR 2,300, due on the 10th day of the respective month.

3. Article XIV of the employment contract reads as follows: ‘Termination of the contract by Player: The Player will be considered that terminated the contract with club with a legitimate cause by announcing the club in writing 30 (thirty) days in advance, if the club: a) shall be found guilty of a serious and persistent violation of the terms and conditions of this contract, or b) fails in payment of any remuneration or other payments or bonuses owed to the player, according to this contract, for more than 30 (thirty) days from the time when the relevant obligations should be fulfilled […]’.

4. Article IX of the employment contract stipulates the following: ‘Liabilities of the club […] During the terms of the contract, the club shall put in the player's service: […] e) training programme (including possible changes)’.

5. Article X of the employment contract, inter alia, states: ‘Disciplinary Measures and Sanctions, 1) If the player violates any of his obligations specified in this contract, or does not meet the objectives set case by case by the club, the club may apply penalties below, along with all the penalties and sanctions provided for in the regulations of club: a) reprimand, b) fine […]’.

6. Article XVIII of the employment contract contains the following: ‘Notices and advertisement […] 3) Notices for terminating the contract, searching for a right […] must necessarily submitted to the Football Federation of Country B. 4) Notice shall take place at the club address: Stadium of Country B, Durres, e-mail: ClubA@yahoo.com’.

7. On 28 June 2018, the player put Club A in default for the amount of EUR 8,050 (i.e. half of the salary for March 2018, and the full salaries for April, May and June 2018) and provided it a 10 days’ deadline to pay him said amount. On 13 July 2018, the player provided Club A with an additional deadline of 5 days to pay him the requested amount.

8. On 21 July 2018, the player unilaterally terminated the contract due to the outstanding salaries.

9. Furthermore, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 28 July 2018, the player and the Club of Country F, Club E (hereinafter: Respondent III or Club E) signed an employment contract, valid for the period between 1 August 2018 and 31 May 2019 in turn of a remuneration of USD 80,000, payable in 10 equal monthly salaries of USD 8,000.

10. In addition, according to the information contained in the TMS, on 6 August 2018, the Football Association of Country B rejected the ITC-request from the Football Association of Country F, as it was of the opinion that the player still had a valid contract with its affiliated Club A. On 8 August 2018, the Football Association of Country F disputed the said rejection for the ITC-request and requested FIFA’s intervantion.

11. On 23 August 2018, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee rendered a decision, deciding that the Football Association of Country F was authorized to provisionally register the player with its affiliated club E, which registration eventually took place on 24 August 2018.

12. After being requested to do so, the player informed FIFA that, after he played for Club E in the period between 24 August 2018 and 30 December 2018, on 4 January 2019, he signed a contract with the club of Country G, club H, valid between 7 January 2019 and 15 December 2021. According to said contract, he was entitled to a monthly salary of 1,500. For the period between 4 January 2019 and 30 June 2019, this corresponds to approximately EUR 4,602.

I. Club A’s claim against the player and Club E:

13. On 31 August 2018, Club A lodged a claim against the player and Club E in front of FIFA, requesting that the player and/or Club E be ordered to pay compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 27,600, consisting of the residual value of the contract in the period between August 2018 and July 2019, i.e. 12 monthly salaries of EUR 2,300 each.

14. In addition, Club A requested to hold Club E jointly and severely liable for the payment of said amount of compensation for breach of contract, as the latter allegedly induced the player to breach his contract. Moreover, Club A requested that the player be held responsible for the payment of procedural costs and ‘legal fees’.

15. In its claim, Club A explained that, as from the start of the 2018/2019 season, the player no longer showed up at Club A’s premises for participating in the pre-season training sessions.

16. As a result of the foregoing, Club A explained that, on 5 July 2018, it contacted the player and requested him to come back to its club.

17. Furthermore, Club A maintained that, since the player did not reply to the aforementioned letter dated 5 July 2018, and because he still did not show up at Club A’s training sessions, the following fines were imposed on him:

 EUR 300 for ‘lack of appearance’ between 5 and 7 July 2018, imposed on 7 July 2018;

 EUR 500 for ‘lack of appearance’ between 8 and 9 July 2018, imposed on 9 July 2018;

 EUR 500 for ‘lack of appearance’ between 10 and 11 July 2018, imposed on 11 July 2018;

 EUR 500 for ‘lack of appearance’ between 12 and 14 July 2018, imposed on 14 July 2018;

 EUR 500 for ‘lack of appearance’ between 15 and 18 July 2018, imposed on 18 July 2018;

 50% of ‘the yearly payment’, in accordance with ‘point 10. of the club’s internal rule book’, for ‘lack of appearance’ between 5 and 22 July 2018, imposed on 22 July 2018.

18. Furthermore, club A alleged that, on 15 May 2018, ‘the head of Club A’ decided to fine all the players and the staff with 50% of their salary of April 2018, due to ‘poor results in the championship’. In addition, according to Club A, on 19 May 2018, ‘the head of Club A’ decided to fine all the players and the staff once again, this time with 70% of their salary of May 2018, due to ‘poor results in the championship’.

19. In continuation, Club A explained that it fulfilled all its financial obligations towards the player and submitted several handwritten lists, as well as payment instructions to its bank, on the basis of which it inferred that it always fulfilled its financial obligations to its players.

20. Finally, Club A pointed out that, on 3 July 2017, the player terminated the employment contract without just cause, as: (i) there were allegedly no outstanding payments pending; (ii) it allegedly never received any notice form the player and (ii) the player did not show up for training sessions anymore, eventually signing a new contract with Club E.

I.a. The player’s reply to Club A’s claim:

21. In reply to Club A’s claim, the player argued that he terminated the contract with just cause on 21 July 2018, as several monthly salaries remained unpaid. Furthermore, the player explained that “the club was paying the wage separately […] a smaller part on the bank account and a larger part in cash”. In this respect, the player admitted that he “had received sometimes the cash part of wage, but he never signed any confirmation that he ha[d] received the money”.

22. Furthermore, the player explained that, after he sent a default letter on 28 June 2018, Club A paid him the entire salary for March 2018, a part of the debt for the salary of April 2018, i.e. EUR 375, and a part of the salary for the month of May 2018, i.e. EUR 375.

23. In addition, the player contested the validity of the fines imposed on him in the period between 7 July and 18 July 2018, as he had already ‘sent the warning to the club and then the termination as well’ and because Club A did not follow a due process in imposing the fines. What is more, the player explained that he was never informed that a disciplinary procedure had started against him or that there were fines imposed on him. In this respect, the player also explained that he was never informed about the start of the training sessions of Club A, in breach of article IX.e of the employment contract. Furthermore, the player alleged that Club A did not purchase a flight ticket in order for him to travel to Durres, Country B.

24. With regard to the fines imposed on the entire team on 15 and 19 May 2018, the player argued against their validity, as ‘they are contrary to FIFA legal acts’ and because, not being aware of their existence, he could not defend himself against their imposition.

25. In conclusion, the player requested that Club A’s claim be rejected and that it be ordered to pay procedural costs.

I.b. Club E’s reply to Club A’s claim:

26. In its reply to Club A’s claim, Club E referred to article XIV of the contract and explained that the player had duly put Club A in default on 28 June 2018 and on 13 July 2018, before he unilaterally terminated the contract on 21 July 2018. As a result, Club E deemed that the player had terminated the contract with just cause, based on article 14 and 14bis of the FIFA Regulations.

27. Furthermore, Club E maintained that Club A had not fulfilled its contractual obligations, by failing to timely pay the player’s salary and acting in bad faith towards him.

28. With regards to its alleged joint liability, Club E argued that it could not be held jointly liable, as it is ‘irrefutable’ that the player had just cause to terminate the employment contract.

29. In conclusion, Club E requested that Club A’s claim be rejected, that no sporting sanctions be imposed on Club E and that Club A be held responsible for the payment of legal and procedural costs.

I.c. Club A’s replica:

30. In its replica to the positions of the player and Club E, Club A explained that, based on article X of the employment contract, it had the right to impose the mentioned fines on the player.

31. Furthermore, Club A argued that the player did not have just cause to terminate the employment contract, as: (i) there were no overdue payables; (ii) there was no breach of a ‘serious level’ and (iii) the player ‘wanted in fact to go to the new club for better financial remuneration’.

32. In addition, Club A maintained that, even if there were overdue payables, the least that could have been expected from the player was to be present at Club A’s premises. However, according to Club A, the player was absent without any valid reason in the period between 28 June and 21 July 2018.

33. Finally, Club A argued that it had difficulties finding an adequate replacement for the player, and requested the acceptance of its initial claim.

I.d. The player’s duplica:

34. In his duplica, the player reiterated his previous argumentations and concluded that Club A breached several of its contractual obligations, as a result of which he unilaterally terminated the contract with just cause on 21 July 2018.

I.e. Club E’s duplica:

35. In its duplica, Club E reiterated its previous argumentations and insisted that the player unilaterally terminated the contract with just cause in line with article 14 and 14bis of the FIFA Regulations. As a result of the foregoing, it deemed that it could not be held jointly liable for the payment of compensation, and as a result of which no sporting sanctions shall be imposed on Club E.

36. In addition, Club E argued that the fines imposed on the player could not be upheld, as the decision to impose them was not duly communicated to the player, nor did the player acknowledge receipt of said decisions.

II. The player’s claim against Club A

37. On 19 October 2018, the player lodged a separate claim against Club A in front of FIFA, requesting outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, specified as follows:

a. Outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 9,606, consisting of:

 EUR 1,150 as outstanding part of the salary for the month of March 2018, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2018;

 EUR 2,300 as outstanding salary for the month of April 2018, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2018;

 EUR 2,300 as outstanding salary for the month of May 2018, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2018;

 EUR 2,300 as outstanding salary for the month of June 2018, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2018;

 EUR 1,556 as outstanding salary for the month of July 2018, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2018.

b. Compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR 26,044, consisting of:

 EUR 744 as residual value of the contract in the month of July 2018;

 EUR 25,300 as residual value of the contract in the period between August 2018 and July 2019, corresponding to 11 monthly salaries of EUR 2,300 each;

 5% interest p.a. on the abovementioned amounts as from 22 July 2018.

38. Furthermore, the player requested sporting sanctions in line with article 24bis of the FIFA Regulations to be imposed on Club A.

39. In his claim, the player explained that he fulfilled all his contractual obligations towards Club A until 21 July 2018, the day on which he unilaterally terminated the employment contract, due to outstanding remuneration. In this respect, the player explained that Club A only paid him a part of his salary for March 2018, i.e. EUR 1,150, but failed to pay him the full salaries for the months of April, May, June and July 2018, i.e. until 21 July 2018, even after he had put it in default on 28 June and 13 July 2018.

II.a. Club A’s reply to the player’s claim:

40. In its reply to the player’s claim, Club A reiterated its previous argumentations and submitted a copy of its claim lodged on 31 August 2018.

II.b. The player’s replica:

41. In his replica, the player reiterated his argumentation that he terminated the contract with just cause in line with article 14 and 14bis of the FIFA Regulations and that all the communications from his side were sent to the e-mail address mentioned in the contract.

42. In addition, with regards to the disciplinary fines imposed on him, the player reiterated his previous argumentation and maintained that he was not part to any of the related disciplinary proceedings. As a result of the foregoing circumstances, the player argued that the validity of the said fines could not be upheld.

43. Moreover, the player reiterated his claim for compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 26,044 and amended the part of his claim related to the outstanding remuneration, now claiming the total amount of EUR 7,706, broken down as follows:

 EUR 1,925 as outstanding salary for the month of April 2018, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2018;

 EUR 1,925 as outstanding salary for the month of May 2018, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2018;

 EUR 2,300 as outstanding salary for the month of June 2018, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2018;

 EUR 1,556 as outstanding salary for the month of July 2018, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2018.

II.c. Club A’s duplica:

44. In its duplica, Club A reiterated its previous argumentation and pointed out that, even if the player was entitled to compensation for breach of contract, the value of his new contract with Club E would need to be deducted from the player’s entitlement.

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 Club A’s claim was submitted to FIFA on 31 August 2018 and that the player’s claim was submitted to FIFA on 19 October 2018. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 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. a of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2018) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute between an Country B club and a Country D player, with the involvement of Country F club.

3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2018), and considering that Club A’s claim was lodged on 31 August 2018, as well as that the player’s claim was lodged on 19 October 2018, the June 2018 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. 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.

5. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that, according to Club A, the player de facto unilaterally terminated his employment contract on 3 July 2018, by refraining altogether from attending the club’s training sessions. Moreover, the members of the DRC took into account Club A’s allegation that it left no salary payments outstanding and that – despite several requests addressed to the player to return to the club in order to re-join the team – the latter never complied nor sent any notice to Club A.

6. Furthermore, the DRC observed that, according to Club A, the fines it had imposed on the player were justified in light of his absences in the period between 5 and 18 July 2018. The members of the DRC took note, therefore, that – according to Club A – the player had terminated his employment contract without just cause only in order to sign a new contract with Club E for a higher remuneration.

7. The DRC observed that the player, for his part, submitted that, not only did the club never inform him about the starting date of the 2018/2019 season, but it also left unpaid more than 3 monthly salaries. The members of the Chamber further took note that the player argued he had addressed Club A with two default letters, one on 28 June 2018 and one on 13 July 2018, after which Club A did not fully comply with its obligations, i.e. never paid him the full due amount. Moreover, the DRC noted that – according to the player – the aforementioned fines were unlawfully imposed on him due to the lack of due process in rendering them and that, in light of all the foregoing, he had just cause to terminate the employment contract on 21 July 2018.

8. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that Club E, for its part, substantially adhered to the player’s position, maintaining that the latter had just cause to terminate the employment contract due to Club A’s failure to meet its contractually agreed financial obligations.

9. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, and in light of the parties’ positions, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to first determine on which date the player unilaterally terminated the employment contract and whether said termination was made with or without just cause. Subsequently, to determine the consequences thereof.

10. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that, from the information on file, it appeared that Club A never directly contacted the player, neither with its alleged request to return to the club, nor with the confirmations that it had imposed several fines on him. In this respect, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Chamber observed that – concerning the imposition of the said fines – Club A produced, throughout the course of the proceedings, the following documents:

(i) a letter, dated 5 July 2018, it had addressed to the FAF, reporting “the provisions taken regarding the players”, however, without specifying these provisions;

(ii) notices concerning the fines imposed on 7 July, 9 July, 11 July, 14 July, 18 July and 22 July 2018 solely addressed to the FAF and not to the player directly;

(iii) copy of a club’s internal decision, dated 15 May 2018, reporting that “the head of Club A” decided to fine all the players and the staff with 50% of their salary of April 2018 due to “poor results in the championship”;

(iv) copy of a further club’s internal decision, dated 19 May 2018, reporting that “the head of Club A” decided to fine once more all the players and the staff, this time with 70% of their salary of May 2018 due to “poor results in the championship”.

11. In relation to the above, therefore, the Chamber observed that Club A did not provide sufficient evidence corroborating the allegation that it had informed the player of the fines it was imposing on him. Moreover, the members of the DRC pointed out that – in any case – those fines had been imposed on the player after the date on which – according to Club A – he had terminated the employment contract, i.e. 3 July 2018. What is more, with regards to the fines allegedly imposed on the entire team, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that the reasoning behind their adoption could not be upheld, as the “poor sporting performance” cannot constitute a valid reason to curtail up to 70% of the players’ salaries.

12. Consequently, the DRC decided to disregard the aforementioned fines, as the ones solely concerning the player party to the present dispute were never addressed to him and, as such, he could not take position on their reasoning. With regards to those concerning the entire team, the members of the DRC pointed out once more that they had been unlawfully imposed.

13. On the other hand, the members of the Chambers, again bearing in mind the abovementioned art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, observed that the player – instead – provided sufficient proof corroborating his allegation that he contacted Club A on several occasions, requesting the payment of his outstanding dues, and that he addressed the club to the contact details indicated in the employment contract, as well as those indicated on the club’s official website.

14. Moreover, the DRC observed that the player provided a copy of his termination letter dated 21 July 2018, addressed to Club A. Therefore, the members of the Chamber concluded that sad date should be considered as the date on which the employment contract was unilaterally terminated by the player.

15. The foregoing having been clarified, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to Club A’s allegation that it had fulfilled its contractual obligations concerning the regular payment of the player’s salary. In this respect, the DRC – once more mindful of the recalled art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules – observed that, in support of its allegation, Club A produced several handwritten lists which, however, do not contain the signature of any of its players. The members of the DRC, thus, pointed out that the said lists as well as the payment instructions to its bank produced by Club A, could not constitute proof of acceptance by the player of the amounts indicated in said lists nor proof that said payments had been indeed performed towards him.

16. Moving to the question as to whether the employment contract had been terminated by the player with or without just cause, the Chamber recalled that according to the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, Club A was obliged to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the player, in particular the main obligation of timely paying him the contractually agreed monthly salaries.

17. When analysing the respective arguments, the Chamber firstly recalled that the fines imposed by Club A should not be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether Club A had outstanding dues towards the player.

18. Subsequently, the Chamber focused on the alleged outstanding amounts claimed by the player and noted that he stated that, during the course employment relationship, more than 3 monthly salaries had remained unpaid by Club A. As a result thereof, the player put club A in default. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the player claimed that Club A, even after receiving his default notices of 28 June and 13 July 2018, never paid him the full amount due.

19. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that Club A had not provided sufficient evidence that it had paid the player the entirety of his salaries as from April until July 2018. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber first concluded that Club A was in fact in breach of its contractual obligations towards the player, regarding in particular the payment of his full remuneration during the indicated period.

20. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that, taking into account the documentation and argumentation presented by the parties to the dispute, it remained uncontested that in the concerned season more than three monthly salaries remained outstanding at the time the player terminated the employment contract with Club A, on 21 July 2018.

21. On account of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, as well as the provisions contained in arts. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations, the Chamber came to the conclusion that on 21 July 2018, the player had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract and that Club A is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the player.

22. Having established that Club A is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract and that, therefore, its claim had to be rejected in its entirety, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player is entitled to receive from the former an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

23. Along those lines, the Chamber firstly referred to the player’s request regarding the outstanding remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the contract. In this respect, the members of the Chamber concurred that Club A must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.

24. In this context, the Chamber the members of the Chamber referred once more to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and the basis legal principle of burden of proof, and noted that Club A did not provide sufficient proof against the player’s allegation that salary payments connected to the period between April and July 2018 had not been remitted to him.

25. Consequently, the Chamber established that a total amount of EUR 7,706, corresponding to the player’s salary entitlement connected to the period between April and July 2018 remained outstanding and decided that Club A is liable to pay to the player the said amount.

26. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s specific request on the point when he amended his claim, the Chamber decided to award the latter interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 7,706 as follows: (i) as of 1 May 2018 on the amount of EUR 1,925; (ii) as of 1 June 2018 on the amount of EUR 1,925; (iii) as of 1 July 2018 on the amount of EUR 2,300; (iv) as of 1 August 2018 on the amount of EUR 1,556.

27. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated 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, 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.

28. 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. 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.

29. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by Club A to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the regulations. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its termination and concluded that he would have been entitled to receive EUR 27,600 as remuneration had the employment contract been executed until its regular expiry date, i.e. 30 June 2019.

30. In continuation, the Chamber assessed as to whether the player 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(s) 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.

31. In respect of the above, the Chamber recalled that, following the termination of the employment contract at stake, the player signed an employment contract with Club E, valid as from 1 August 2018 until 31 May 2019, providing for a monthly salary of USD 8,000. Moreover, the DRC observed that, on 4 January 2019, the player signed a contract with the club of Country G, club H, valid between 7 January 2019 and 15 December 2021. According to said contract, he was entitled to a monthly salary of 1,500, which – for the period between 4 January 2019 and 30 June 2019 – correspond to approximately EUR 4,602.

32. Consequently, the Chamber established that the sums of the values of the two new employment contracts concluded by the player for the period as from August 2018 until May 2019 exceeds the residual value of the employment contract with Club A for the same period of time. Therefore, the Chamber decided that, even though Club A is liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player, there is no amount that should be awarded to the player as compensation for breach of contract for the period between the termination of the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute and its regular expiry, since the Claimant has been able to fully mitigate his damages for said time period.

33. However, in application of the criteria outlined in art. 17 par. 1 point. ii of the Regulations, and considering that the early termination of the contract was due to overdue payables, the Chamber noted that, in addition to the mitigated compensation, the player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries.

34. In this context, the Chamber recalled that, according to the employment contract, the player was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 2,300. Therefore, the Chamber calculated that the corresponding amount as established in the previous paragraph is equal to EUR 6,900.

35. Consequently, the Chamber established that the payable compensation corresponds to the total amount of EUR 6,900.

36. On account of all the abovementioned considerations, the specificities of the case at hand as well as the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damage, the Chamber decided that Club A must pay the total amount of EUR 6,900 to the player as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5 % interest p.a. as from the date of the claim of the player, i.e. 18 October 2018.

37. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim of the player.

38. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

39. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

40. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that Club A does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to Club A, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on Club A in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

41. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the First Claimant / Respondent II, Club A, is rejected.

2. The claim of the Second Claimant / Respondent I, Player C, is partially accepted.

3. The First Claimant / Respondent II has to pay to the Second Claimant / Respondent I outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 7,706, plus 5% interest p.a. until the effective date of payment as follows:

a. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2018 on the amount of EUR 1,925;

b. 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2018 on the amount of EUR 1,925;

c. 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2018 on the amount of EUR 2,300;

d. 5% p.a. as of 1 August 2018 on the amount of EUR 1,556.

4. The First Claimant / Respondent II has to pay to the Second Claimant / Respondent I compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 6,900, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 19 October 2018 until the date of effective payment.

5. Any further claim lodged by the Second Claimant / Respondent I is rejected.

6. The Second Claimant / Respondent I is directed to inform the First Claimant / Respondent II, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned under points 3. and 4. above.

7. The First Claimant / Respondent II shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with points 3. and 4. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

8. In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with points 3. and 4. above are not paid by the First Claimant / Respondent II within 45 days as from the notification by the Second Claimant / Respondent I of the relevant bank details to the First Claimant / Respondent II, the First Claimant / Respondent II shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

9. The ban mentioned in point 8. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.

10. In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

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 / www.tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

Encl. CAS directives