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 14 September 2018
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 September 2018,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Jérôme Perlemuter (France), member
Elvis Chetty (Seychelles), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club A, Country B
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the player,
Player C, Country D
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club E, Country B
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 29 December 2014, the player of Country D, Player C (hereinafter: the player or Respondent / Counter-Claimant) and the club of Country B, Club A (hereinafter: Club A or Claimant / Counter-Respondent) signed a contract valid as from 29 December 2014 until 31 December 2017 (hereinafter: the contract).
2. According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive the following amounts:
a sign-on fee of USD 10,000, due upon signature of the contract;
an instalment of USD 10,000, due on 1 August 2015;
an instalment of USD 15,000, due on 1 August 2016;
a monthly salary of USD 4,000, starting ‘in 31-01-2015 ending in 31-07-2015’
a monthly salary of USD 4,500, starting ‘in 31-08-2015 ending in 31-07-2016’;
a monthly salary of USD 5,000, starting ‘in 31-08-2016 ending in 31-12-2017’.
3. Furthermore, the player was entitled to the following bonus payments:
USD 200 ‘after winning game in the league’;
USD 5,000 ‘for winning the league’;
USD 5,000 ‘for winning the cup’.
In addition, the player was entitled to ‘good residence in the club hotel’, as well as ‘one ticket for him and his family and two children every season’.
4. On 22 February 2017, Club A lodged a claim against the player in front of FIFA, claiming compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 350,000 to be paid by the player, plus ‘legal interest to be applied […] from the due date till full and final payment’, specified as follows:
USD 30,000 as costs of ‘recruiting a new player (Player F from Country G)’;
USD 70,000 as ‘financial damage for the unilateral breach of the agreement by the player without just cause’, consisting of the 14 remaining monthly salaries of USD 5,000 each, to be paid as per the contract in the period between November 2016 and December 2017;
USD 150,000 as ‘fee of any permanent transfer of the player “any” with other club he sign’;
USD 100,000 as ‘overall damage suffered by the Respondent in terms of technical damage to the club’s performance, as well as reputational damage which will have substantial effect on its sponsorship effort […]’;
Furthermore, Club A requested to impose sporting sanctions on the player, as well as that the player has to be held responsible for the payment of procedural costs and the legal fees of Club A in the amount of CHF 5,000.
5. As to the substance of the matter, Club A argues that on 15 September 2016, the Football Association of Country D sent a letter to the Football Association of Country B, requesting the player’s release for international games of the national team of Country D. In this respect, Club A explains that on 4 October 2016, the national team of Country D would play against Country H and on 7 October 2016 against Country J and that, in line with the FIFA Regulations, it released the player and allowed him to play in said games.
6. In addition, Club A explains that after the aforementioned games, the player returned to its club, however with ‘considerable delay’.
7. What is more, on 24 October 2016, the Football Association of Country D again requested the Football Association of Country B for the release of the player for international games of the national team of Country D to be played between 8 and 12 November 2016, i.e. on 8 November 2016 against Country L and 12 November 2016 against Country M. Club A explains that again, it released the player in line with the FIFA Regulations.
8. However, according to Club A, the player never returned to its club in the period after 24 October 2016. In view of this absence, Club A explains that on 22 November 2016, the Football Association of Country B sent a letter to the Football Association of Country D, requesting the return of the player to its affiliated Club A, explaining that the absence of the player caused damage to Club A. According to Club A, the Football Association of Country D never replied to this letter.
9. Furthermore, Club A explained that on 5 December 2016, the Football Association of Country D submitted a new request to the Football Association of Country B for the release of the player as from 15 December 2016, as the national team of Country D would participate in the Tournament N 2017 in Country P, which tournament would be played between 14 January 2017 and 5 February 2017.
10. According to Club A, on 8 December 2016, the Football Association of Country B replied to the Football Association of Country D’s letter dated 5 December 2016, indicating that the player never returned to its affiliated Club A in the period after 24 October 2016. Further, the Football Association of Country B referred to its letter dated 22 November 2016, in which it requested the help of Football Association of Country D to solve this issue.
11. Finally, Club A explains that the player never returned to its club, and that on 28 December 2016, it had no other option then to recruit another player, Player F from the club of Country G, Club Q, for a loan fee of USD 30,000.
12. In conclusion, Club A deems that the player was in breach of his contractual obligations and should be ordered to pay the club compensation for breach of contract. Finally, Club A points out that the breach of contract was also facilitated by the Football Association of Country D, as it did not send the player back to Club A, and requests that such behaviour shall be subject to an investigation by FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, ‘should your esteemed panel does not consider itself with enough jurisdiction to sanction the Football Association of Country D’.
13. In reply to Club A’s claim, the player explains that he deems that any request of Club A against the Football Association of Country D cannot be part of the ongoing proceedings, as the DRC is not competent for said requests. What is more, the player explains that he deems that Club A only lodged a claim against him, in order to construct a joint liability of the Football Association of Country D and the player, but that Club A’s real problems were with the Football Association of Country D. As a result, the player states that the entire claim has to be considered inadmissible.
14. As to the substance, the player argues that as from April 2016, Club A showed its bad faith, by failing to pay his salaries for the months of April and May 2016. According to the player, Club A promised him to pay these salaries at a later phase.
15. Further, the player explains that in January 2014, he was called up for the first time by the national team of Country D and confirms that on 15 September, 24 October and 5 December 2016, he was again called up by the Football Association of Country D for the national team of Country D. In this respect, the player explicitly denies Club A’s allegations that ‘he left the club outside of the dates as requested in each invitation’ and states that ‘he denies any further absence’.
16. In addition, the player argues that Club A did not prove that the player was not available to its club and states that only after Football Association of Country D’s request on 5 December 2016, he left Club A, in order to fulfil his international duties for the national team of Country D. Moreover, according to the player, the Football Association of Country D would have never sent a letter to Club A, via the Football Association of Country B, for his release, if he would not have been present at Club A.
17. What is more, the player argues that Club A was not happy with his invitations for the national team of Country D, and that for this reason, it unilaterally terminated the contract with the player and hired a new player in December 2016.
18. Moreover, the player concludes that an absence of only a couple of days does not establish a just cause for Club A to unilaterally terminate the contract. According to the player, Club A simply was no longer interested in his services, as it already contracted another player on 28 December 2016 and therefore, terminated the contract without just cause.
19. In view of the above, on 7 May 2018, the player lodged a counterclaim towards Club A, requesting outstanding remuneration as well as compensation for breach of contract, specified as follows:
Outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 14,900, broken down as follows:
USD 9,000 as two outstanding salaries for the months of April and May 2016, in the amount of USD 4,500 each;
USD 5,000 as outstanding salary for the month of December 2016;
USD 900 as rental and transportation allowance, calculated ‘ex aequo et bono’;
Compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 110,600, broken down as
follows:
USD 60,000 as residual value of the contract for the year 2017, consisting of 12 monthly salaries of USD 5,000 each;
USD 3,600 as rental and housing allowances for the year 2017;
USD 2,000 as costs of ‘4 round trips from Country D to Country B’;
USD 7,500 as ‘moral damages’;
USD 30,000, based on the specificity of the sport as a factor for damages, specified as ‘6 months of salary compensation’.
Furthermore, the player requested 5% interest p.a. on the abovementioned amounts as from the relevant due dates, as well as sporting sanctions to be imposed on Club A. Finally, the player requested that Club A has to bear his legal expenses.
20. In its reply to the player’s response and counterclaim, Club A argues that it only referred to the behaviour of Football Association of Country D in its initial claim, in order to give a complete overview of all the relevant circumstances, but insists that it only has claims towards the player. Further, Club A explains that the matter at hand is concentrated on the player’s (alleged) breach of his contractual obligations.
21. In addition, Club A denies all the player’s allegations, and submits an extract of a WhatsApp-conversation, allegedly taking place between on 10 March and 21 June 2017, between the player and Club A’s president, Mr. R. In the WhatsApp conversation of 27 March 2017, the player requests Mr. R to accept his apologies for what happened and further writes the following: ‘I promise to come back and play if anything happens that I run away then you punish me’. Furthermore, Mr. R writes to the player the following: ‘Demies I give you more then you deserve you get all your money and twice you ran away’, to which the player allegedly replied ‘Yes I know president it’s my fault’.
22. Moreover, Club A submitted a payment receipt dated 21 July 2016 for the amount of USD 15,000, duly signed by the player, in accordance with which the player confirmed to have received an amount of USD 15,000 as ‘down payment of the third season’, as well as that he ‘got all his right before the date of signing this receipt’.
23. In view of the abovementioned circumstances, Club A deems that it is clear that the player ‘ran away’ and breached his contractual obligations. Further, Club A argues that it never had a problem with the international duties of the player.
24. In conclusion, Club A requests the rejection of the player’s counterclaim, as well as for the acceptance of its initial claim.
25. In his duplica, the player reiterates his previous argumentation and further contests ‘the authenticity of the online conversation’ submitted by Club A. In this respect, the player argues that such information cannot be considered as valid evidence, as it is ‘a transcript of an alleged conversation between 2 phone numbers, nothing less, nothing more’.
26. Furthermore, the player states that he never received ‘any notification and/or complaint concerning his international duties and/or absence from the club or Federation’, and that he only became aware of Club A’s allegations when he was informed by FIFA about the present dispute.
27. Finally, the player explicitly denies Club A’s allegations that by means of the payment receipt dated 21 July 2016, the player received all his dues under the contract signed between the parties. In this respect, the player confirms to have signed the payment receipt dated 21 July 2016, but explains that the amount of USD 15,000 only refers to sign-on fee for the third season, which was due on 1 August 2016.
28. In its comments to the entire case file, Club E (hereinafter: Club E or Intervening Party) explained that on 12 September 2017, it contacted both the player and his manager, Mr. S, and that it was informed that the player was ‘free and not bound to any football club whatsoever’. Said information was, according to Club E, also confirmed by the Football Association of Country B. In conclusion, Club E states that it had ’no idea about the dispute between the player and Club A’.
29. Furthermore, Club E explains that it signed a contract with the player, valid between 12 September 2017 and 30 May 2018, on the basis of which the player would be entitled to receive a monthly salary of USD 1,250, to be paid in 8 instalments ‘until 30-05-2018’.
30. Finally, according to the information provided by the Football Association of Country B, on 17 May 2018, the player had the intention to sign a new contract with the club of Country B, Club T. Further, according to the information contained in the TMS, the player and Club T apparently entered into an employment relationship, of which however no further details are available, but terminated their contractual relation as per 3 June 2018. Thereafter, on 26 July 2018, the player was transferred to the club of Country U, Club W, where he signed a contract valid for the 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 seasons.
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 claim of Club A was submitted to FIFA on 22 February 2017. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2017; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a club of Country B and a player of Country D, with the involvement of another club of Country B.
3. However, the Chamber noted that the player is of the opinion that the Dispute Resolution Chamber has no competence to deal with the entire claim at stake, as he understands that Club A had also lodged a claim against the Football Association of Country D, as a result of which the entire claim should be declared inadmissible
4. In this respect, the members of the Chamber wished to point out that, after being informed by the FIFA Administration that it would not be able to deal with its claim against the Football Association of Country D, Club A had duly amended its claim and withdrew its requests against the aforementioned federation
5. Furthermore, it appeared to the members of the Chamber that the remaining parties to the dispute were two clubs of Country B, as well as a player of Country D, and that as such, the international dimension of the dispute was given.
6. As a result of all the foregoing, all the player’s objections towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter had to be rejected, and the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
7. 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 2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 February 2017, the 2016 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
8. 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.
9. In continuation, the members of the Chamber took into account that Club A and the player concluded an employment contract, valid between 29 December 2014 and 31 December 2017. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that Club A brought forward that the player, as from September 2016, was called up several times for the national teams of Country D and also played in several matches of said national team.
10. However, according to Club A, after the player had played in a match of the national team of Country D on 12 November 2016 against Country M, he failed to return to Club A by no later than 16 November 2016. Despite several requests from Club A, sent via the Football Association of Country B and the Football Association of Country D to the player, he never came back. In view of these circumstances, Club A is of the opinion that the player had breached his contract without just cause and has to be obliged to pay compensation to Club A.
11. The player, for his part, submitted that as form April 2016, Club A was in bad faith and failed to pay the player his salaries for the months of April, May and December 2016. What is more, the player argues that Club A was not happy with his invitations for the national team of Country D and that for this reason, it had terminated his contract without just cause and hired a new player, to replace him in Club A’s squad. Finally, the player explicitly denies that he was absent from Club A outside the release periods, in which he played for the national team of Country D. As a result, the player lodged a counterclaim, claiming outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract from Club A.
12. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, in particular, the opposite positions of the parties, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, was to determine on which date and by which party the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated, and whether said termination was made with or without just cause. Subsequently, the Chamber needed to determine the consequences of said early termination of the contractual relationship, as well as to establish which party is to be held responsible for said consequences.
13. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that from the documentation on file, it appeared that the player, while being under contract with Club A, on 15 September 2016 was called up by the Football Association of Country D in order to play for the national team of Country D in two international matches against Country H and Country J. After returning to Club A, according to the latter with a ‘considerable delay’, on 24 October 2016, the player was again called up by the Football Association of Country D, this time for the preparation and actual participation in two international matches to be played against Country L on 8 November 2016 and Country M on 12 November 2016. The Chamber noted that from the information on file, it appeared that the player was duly released by Club A on 24 October 2016, and, in line with article 1 par. 4 and of of Annexe 1 of the FIFA Regulations, should have returned to Club A no later than 16 November 2016.
14. What is more, it appeared to the members of the Chamber that Club A noted that the player did not return to its club, and that already on 22 November 2016, it sent via the Football Association of Country B a letter to the Football Association of Country D, requesting a clarification for the absence of the player and explicitly demanding the player to return to Club A, which letter has remained unanswered by the Football Association of Country D. Further, the Chamber referred to the fact that on 5 December 2016, the Football Association of Country D again requested the Football Association of Country B to release the player, as it apparently was of the understanding that the player had already returned to Club A, as well as to the Football Association of Country B’s answer dated 8 December 2016. In said answer, the Football Association of Country B explained to the Football Association of Country D that the player was absent from his duties at Club A since 24 October 2016, the day on which he was released for participating in the international games of the national team of Country D.
15. As to the player’s argumentation, the members of the Chamber turned their attention the player’s allegations that he was not absent in the period as from 24 October 2016, as mentioned by Club A, and that only on 15 December 2016, he left Club A– in line with Football Association of Country D’s request to release him – to participate with the national team of Country D in the Tournament N for the period between 14 January and 5 February 2017. What is more, the player stated that his monthly salaries for April and May 2016 had remained unpaid, and that at the end of December 2016, he found out that Club A had hired a new player, in order to replace him, as it allegedly was not happy with the player’s international duties for the national team of Country D. For this reason, the player deems that Club A unilaterally terminated the contract at the end of December 2016 without just cause.
16. When analysing the respective arguments, the Chamber first of all wished to refer to the contents of article art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.
17. In this respect, the Chamber turned its attention to the events allegedly occurred as from 24 October 2016 and by doing so, noted that the player did not provide any documentary evidence or corroborating documentation, proving that after his release for international duties with the national team of Country D, he had duly returned to Club Ain November 2016. What is more, from the information on file, it appeared to the members of the Chamber that already on 22 November 2016, Club A reported the absence of the player via the Football Association of Country B to the Football Association of Country D, and that the player himself confirmed that at the latest as from 5 December 2016, he was no longer present at Club A.
18. Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Chamber had to conclude that the player, after his release for the international games to be played with the national team of Country D, had failed to return to Club A in November 2016.
19. Furthermore, the Chamber turned to the player’s allegations that his salaries for April, May and December 2016 remained unpaid and noted that there is a payment receipt dated 15 July 2016 for an amount of USD 15,000 on file, duly signed by Club A and the player, which also contains a sentence stipulating that the player received all his entitlements, due before the date of signing the receipt.
20. In this respect, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasize that a party signing a document of legal importance, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and is consequently liable to bear the possible legal consequences arising from the execution of such document.
21. In respect of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber had to conclude that the player had duly signed the payment receipt dated 15 July 2016, according to which document on said date, no amounts remained outstanding. Therefore, the Chamber had to conclude that on 16 November 2016, the date on which the player should have returned to Club A, said club had fulfilled all its financial obligations towards the player. Furthermore, as the player was already absent as from December 2016, he could also not provide any convincing evidence that the club without valid reasons, failed to pay him his monthly salary for December 2016, which was in fact not yet due at the moment he left the club.
22. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that, taking into account the documentation presented by the parties to the dispute, Club A had duly released the player for his international duties with the national team of Country D on several occasions, however that after 16 November 2016, the player did not return to Club A anymore, leaving his whereabouts unknown to Club A. Further, the members of the Chamber noted that Club A had duly paid all the remuneration the player was entitled to until 16 November 2016, the day he should have returned to Club A. Consequently, the Chamber concurred that the player had seriously neglected his contractual obligations, by failing to return to Club A after he was released for his international duties with the national team of Country D.
23. On account of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber considered that the player had terminated the contract without just cause on 16 November 2016, by failing to return to Club A, whereas there was no outstanding remuneration at that point in time and no other justification for his definitive departure from the club. Therefore, the player is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract without just cause.
24. As a consequence to the aforementioned conclusion, the DRC established that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is liable to pay compensation to Club A for breach of contract. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e. Club E, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint liability of the player’s new club is independent from the question as to whether the new club has committed an inducement to contractual breach or any other kind of involvement by the new club. This conclusion is in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber that was repeatedly confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
25. Having stated the above, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract 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 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 a 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.
26. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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 noted the contract did not contain any relevant clauses in this respect.
27. In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable in the case at stake had to be assessed in application of 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 stated 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.
28. In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to Club A in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the financial terms of the former contract and the new contract, the value of which constitutes an essential criterion in the calculation of the amount of compensation in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the relevant compensation should be calculated based on the average fixed remuneration, i.e. excluding any conditional or performance related payment, agreed by the player with his former club and his new club, as well as considering the period of time remaining on the contract signed between the player and the former club.
29. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the fixed remuneration payable to the player under the terms of both the employment contract signed with Club A and the employment contract signed with Club E, for the period of 13.5 months that was remaining since the unilateral termination of the contract by the player until its expiry, i.e. from 16 November 2016 until 31 December 2017.
30. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, as per the employment contract signed with Club A, the player was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of USD 5,000 for the remaining contractual period, i.e. a total fixed remuneration of USD 67,500.
31. In continuation, the DRC equally took note of the player’s monthly remuneration under the terms of his employment contract with his new club, i.e. Club E, signed on 12 September 2017, which corresponds to the total amount of USD 4,375 until 31 December 2017.
32. Taking into account the above, the Chamber concluded that, for the relevant period, the player’s average remuneration amounts to USD 35,937.50.
33. In addition, the Chamber analysed Club A’s request for an amount of USD 30,000 as costs of replacing the player with a new player, Player F. In this respect, the Chamber deemed that it could not be established that these costs would either constitute an objective element or be linked to specifity of sport, and moreover, it could not be established from the information on file that Player F was the direct replacement of the player, or just an additional player to Club A’s squad. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber decided that these costs could not be accepted as objective criteria on which the calculation of the amount of compensation could be based.
34. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the other request for compensation brought forward by Club A, by means of which it claimed an additional, unspecified amount of USD 150,000 as compensation for a future transfer of the player, and concluded that it has to be rejected, since it cannot be considered as an objective element, as a possible future transfer amount is considered to be speculative. Moreover, the Chamber decided also to reject Club A’s request for an unspecified amount of USD 100,000 as ‘overall damage’, due to the lack of a legal basis and the lack of documentary evidence provided by Club A that it would be entitled to such amount.
35. Taking into account all the aforementioned objective elements in the matter at hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the total amount of USD 35,937.50 was to be considered reasonable and justified as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
36. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the player has to pay the amount of USD 35,937.50 as compensation for breach of contract to Club A, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of 22 February 2017 until the date of effective payment, taking into account the request of Club A and the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this regard.
37. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, Club E shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount of compensation.
38. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by deciding that Club A’s claim is admissible and partially accepted, as it has been established that the player did not have just cause to terminate the employment contract. Furthermore, the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim of the player.
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is admissible.
2. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Player C, is rejected.
4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 35,937.50, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 22 February 2017 until the date of effective payment.
5. The Intervening Party, Club E, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount mentioned under point 4.
6. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under point 4. is not paid within the stated time limit, 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 remittance under point 4. 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:
Omar Ongaro
Football Regulatory Director
Encl.: CAS directives