F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 25 February 2020

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2020,

in the following composition:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman

Jérôme Perlemuter (France), member

Stéphane Burchkalter (France), member

on the claim between the player,

László Kleinheisler, Hungary

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1

and the club,

Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

and the club,

NK Osijek, Croatia

represented by Mr Davor Radic

as Counter-Respondent 2

regarding a dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 1 July 2017, the Hungarian player, Mr László Kleinheisler (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Kazakhstani club, Football Club Astana (hereinafter: Astana or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2018.

2. According to the contract, the player was entitled to a net monthly salary of EUR 40,500.

3. On 19 March 2018, the player and Astana (hereinafter jointly referred to as: the parties) concluded an addendum to the contract (hereinafter: the addendum), thereby extending the duration of the contract until 30 June 2021 and providing for the payment of an encouragement fee (hereinafter: the encouragement fee) to the player in the amount of EUR 100,000, payable by no later than 1 September 2018.

4. On 30 October 2018, it appears that UEFA informed Astana of the following:

“This is to inform you that the local debt collection office in Switzerland, on the basis of the request of a creditor, has decided to seize the money related to future UEFA payments to Football Club Astana (hereinafter: “the Club”) up to the total sum of CHF 1’123’000.- (one million one hundred and twenty-three thousand Swiss Francs). Please refer to the attached document for further information.

Under Swiss law, UEFA has to freeze your account (only payments intended to the above mentioned Club) with immediate effect until the seizure is lifted by the same authority (…)”.

5. On 9 November 2018, the player informed Astana that the encouragement fee had not yet been paid. On 12 November 2018, the player reminded Astana of the foregoing.

6. On 16 November 2018, Astana informed the player that “the payments will be done only after we receive that money from our founder”.

7. On 28 November 2018, the player sent a default notice to Astana, granting the latter 8 days to make the payment.

8. On 21 December 2018, the player sent a second default notice to Astana, requesting the payment within 15 days. The player also informed Astana that failure to pay would result in him terminating the contract with immediate effect.

9. On 28 December 2018, Astana replied that the payment of the encouragement fee would be made by no later than 31 March 2019 and apologized for the payment delay “connected some financing issues not depending on the Club”.

10. On 31 December 2018, the player took note of the financial difficulties encountered by Astana, but maintained the 15-days deadline granted in his letter of 21 December 2018 for the payment to be made.

11. On 10 January 2019, the player sent a termination letter (hereinafter: the termination letter) to Astana, thereby terminating the contract for non-payment of the encouragement fee.

12. On the same day, Astana paid the amount of EUR 100,000 to the player.

13. On 11 January 2019, the player and the Croatian club, NK Osijek (hereinafter: NK Osijek or the Counter-Respondent 2) concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2022, according to which the player is entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 13,200.

14. On 29 January 2019, the Kazakhstan Football Federation rejected the ITC request for the registration of the player with NK Osijek, claiming that the contract between the player and Astana had not expired. By a decision dated 14 February 2019, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided to authorize the Croatian Football Federation to provisionally register the player with NK Osijek.

15. On 7 May 2019, the player expressed his gratitude to Astana for the preparation of a “termination agreement” draft, submitted to him on 12 April 2019. This termination agreement, not signed by the parties, stipulated that the contract had been terminated by the player on 10 January 2019 and that Astana would pay him outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 60,800 net. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the player informed Astana of his lower salary with NK Osijek and accordingly, requested the payment of EUR 975,800 within 15 days, corresponding to the balance between his salaries with Astana and NK Osijek, plus EUR 60,800 as provided in the termination agreement.

16. On 13 May 2019, Astana rejected the player’s request and granted him a deadline until 15 May 2019 to sign the termination agreement. The club emphasised that “this offer is final and unnegotiable. We feel that our offer is totally fair as it was Laszlo Kleinheisler (the Player) who left the Club without any consent”.

17. On 15 May 2019, the player rejected Astana’s offer and indicated that he would take this matter to the competent bodies. On 22 May 2019, Astana took note of the player’s correspondence and confirmed its position.

18. On 17 September 2019, the player lodged a claim against Astana in front of FIFA.

19. In his claim, the player considered that Astana breached the contract and the addendum by not paying the encouragement fee, due on 1 September 2018, for more than 4 months and despite numerous reminders. Moreover, the player emphasised that the fact that Astana suffered financial difficulties is not a valid reason for not paying said amount. In this regard, the player noted that Astana paid the encouragement fee of EUR 100,000 on the day following the termination, which only tends to demonstrate that the club probably had the financial capacity to pay said amount at an earlier stage.

20. The player further stated to have fully complied with his contractual obligations. On the other hand, the player considered that Astana did not show any genuine interest in pursuing the contractual relationship.

21. Consequently, in view of the above, the player considered to have terminated the contract with just cause and requested compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 915,000, also taking into account the calculation of his remuneration at NK Osijek, thereby mitigating his damages.

22. Furthermore, the player requested the payment of outstanding bonuses in the amount of EUR 60,800. In this regard, the player referred to Astana’s offer to pay this amount as outstanding bonuses in the termination agreement and confirmed that he accepted said amount. In addition, the player requested 5% interest p.a. on this amount.

23. Finally, the player requested the payment of 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 100,000, corresponding to the encouragement fee already paid by Astana, to be calculated as from 1 September 2018 until 11 January 2019, i.e. the date of payment.

24. In reply to the claim, Astana firstly emphasised that the player was a very important asset of the team. Then, as regards the player’s remuneration, Astana affirmed that it paid the player more than the contract stipulated. As such, Astana provided internal financial documents allegedly attesting of payments made to the player during the contractual relationship. In particular, the club claimed to have paid part of the encouragement fee on 30 October 2018, as follows: “In reality on 25 December 2018 (date of the Demand letter) FC Astana outstanding amount with respect to the Encouragement Fee was 58 269 EUR and remained the same on 11 January 2019 (date of the Termination Letter) as well”. In continuation, Astana deemed that the unpaid part of the encouragement fee only constituted 9,94% of the total value of the contract.

25. In this context, Astana explained that it informed the player that the outstanding part of the encouragement fee would be paid upon receipt of the “prize money from UEFA for participation in UCL and UEL 2018/2019”. However, Astana claimed to have never received this money considering that UEFA froze all payments to the club.

26. Furthermore, Astana claimed to have paid, upon receipt of the termination letter, the amount of EUR 100,000 to the player in order to keep him at the club. In this regard, Astana held that it had always paid the player all his salaries, even after he started sending default notices for the payment of the encouragement fee, meaning that he was not lacking financial resources. In addition, Astana stated that the player had received certain bonuses in addition to the standard remuneration as set out in the contract.

27. Notwithstanding the above, Astana underlined that it tried to settle the matter with the player by offering to pay the total amount of EUR 60,800, corresponding to the outstanding amount of EUR 58,269 of the encouragement fee, plus an amount for the player’s legal costs.

28. Consequently, Astana considered that the player terminated the contract without just cause and that his request for compensation was groundless and disproportionate as it would lead to unjust enrichment. As such, Astana deemed that the player was of bad faith, in particular given that he was aware of the financial difficulties of Astana following the measures taken by UEFA.

29. In continuation, Astana emphasised once again that the player was of bad faith as he concluded an employment agreement with another club on 11 January 2019, i.e. one day after the termination letter. In this regard, Astana expressed its surprise as to the choice of the player to join NK Osijek, as the club does not compete with the best teams in the country, nor does it play in any European competition. Moreover, Astana held that the player and the owners of NK Osijek had former personal ties. In light of the foregoing, Astana considered that the player and NK Osijek breached art. 18 par. 3 of the FIFA Regulations as it is “clear that everything was agreed in advance”.

30. Consequently, in view of the above, Astana submitted a counter-claim against the player and NK Osijek, claiming the total amount of EUR 3,726,694, broken down as follows:

 EUR 1,500,000 as the future transfer of the player. In this respect, Astana argued that the player’s market value would have continued increasing during the remaining two and a half years of the contract, in particular given Astana’s good results in national and European competitions.

 EUR 454,167 as the amortised transfer cost of the player.

 EUR 2,985,796 as the replacement of the player in the person of Dorin Rotariu from FC Club Brugge, taking into account the fixed and conditional transfer fees, as well as the total value of the employment contract of Mr Rotariu.

 EUR 60,000 as the salary of the player with NK Osijek for a period of 6 months, which should be awarded to Astana “on the specificity of sport, taking into account the specific facts of this case”.

 Deduction of EUR 1,215,000 as the remuneration of the player had he stayed at Astana until the termination of the contract.

 Deduction of EUR 58,269 as the outstanding amount of the encouragement fee still to be paid to the player.

31. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, Astana considered that NK Osijek should be jointly and severally liable, as it induced the player to terminate the contract without just cause.

32. Finally, Astana requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the player and NK Osijek.

33. In his comments on the counter-claim, the player reiterated his position and acknowledged receipt of the payment of EUR 41,731 by Astana, but firmly contested that said payment was made as part of the encouragement fee. On the contrary, the player held that said payment was made in the context of bonuses paid to the players.

34. The player further commented on the nature of the encouragement fee, which was the only financial retribution in consideration for the extension of the contract. Therefore, the player considered that by failing to pay the encouragement fee, Astana expressed its lack of interest in pursuing the employment relationship.

35. In addition, the player fully refuted the arguments of Astana as regards his relationship with NK Osijek and the fact that the latter induced him to terminate the contract prematurely.

36. Finally, the player deemed that in the event that the DRC should decide that he terminated the contract without just cause, Astana should not be entitled to any compensation as it did not have any interest in retaining his services and did not comply with its financial obligations.

37. NK Osijek, for its part, contested to have ever induced the player to terminate the contract prematurely, arguing that it “found out in the media that the Player had unilaterally terminated the contract with the above Club, after which it contacted the Player’s agent and signed the Player”. Moreover, NK Osijek underlined that a first draft of the employment contract was sent to the player on 11 January 2019 and signed on 16 January 2019 only.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was first submitted to FIFA on 17 September 2019. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations (edition 2020), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Hungarian player, a Kazakhstani club and a Croatian club.

3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2020) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 September 2019, the June 2019 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.

4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasized 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 this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the player and Astana had signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 July 2017 until 30 June 2018, according to which the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 40,500. In continuation, the Chamber noted that it was also undisputed that the parties had concluded an addendum on 19 March 2018, thereby extending the duration of the contract until 30 June 2021 and providing for the payment of the encouragement fee to the player in the amount of EUR 100,000, by no later than 1 September 2018.

6. What is more, the Chamber further noted that on 10 January 2019, the player unilaterally terminated the employment contract with Astana, alleging that the encouragement fee remained unpaid. The Chamber also noted that on the same day, Astana paid the amount of EUR 100,000 to the player.

7. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that on 11 January 2019, the player and the Croatian club, NK Osijek, concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2022, according to which the player is entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 13,200.

8. Summarising the parties’ respective positions in this dispute, the members of the Chamber noted that the player, on the one hand, claimed that Astana had breached the contract and the addendum by not paying the encouragement fee, due on 1 September 2018, for more than 4 months and despite numerous reminders.

9. Equally, the members of the Chamber took note of the reply of Astana, which, on the other hand, affirmed that it had paid to the player every monthly salary, a substantial part of the encouragement fee, as well as additional remuneration not contractually agreed upon. Moreover, the Chamber noted that Astana invoked its financial difficulties as one of the reasons for the non-payment of the full amount of the encouragement fee. In this context, the Chamber observed that Astana deemed that the player terminated the contract without just cause and lodged a counter-claim against the player and NK Osijek.

10. In these circumstances, the Chamber further noted that the player, in his comments, acknowledged receipt of a payment made by Astana, but contested that said amount constituted a part of the encouragement fee.

11. Finally, the Chamber observed that NK Osijek supported the position of the player, arguing that it did not induce the player to terminate the contract and requested primarily the rejection of the counterclaim lodged by Astana.

12. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the main issue to be analysed in the present case is whether the player in fact had a just cause to unilaterally and prematurely terminate the contract with Astana on 10 January 2019 or not. Subsequently, the Chamber shall establish the financial and/or sporting consequences to be borne by the party found to be in breach of contract.

13. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the 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. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.

14. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

15. In this context, the Chamber noted that the player based the termination of the contract on the non-payment of the encouragement fee, which fell due on 1 September 2018.

16. On the other hand, the Chamber thoroughly analysed the position of Astana, which considered that only a part of the encouragement fee had not been paid to the player, representing a low percentage of the total value of the contract, and that all other due amounts had been paid in favour of the player. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged Astana’s financial difficulties and noted Astana’s efforts, as it allegedly tried to settle the matter with the player, offering to pay the total amount of EUR 60,800.

17. In this regard, based on the information and documentation on file, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted which enabled the Chamber to establish that a part of the encouragement fee had in fact been paid to the player. Indeed, the Chamber observed that on the one hand, Astana claimed to have paid a part of the encouragement fee, whilst on the other hand, even though the player acknowledged receipt of EUR 41,731, he contested Astana’s position, claiming that said amount corresponded to bonuses.

18. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber agreed that the reasons put forward by Astana for the non-payment, i.e. its financial difficulties and the fact that the player allegedly was not in a precarious financial situation since he had duly received all his monthly salaries as well as other amounts, cannot be accepted as valid. The fact that the player was, allegedly, not in a precarious situation cannot possibly serve as a justification for non-compliance by Astana of its contractually agreed obligation with respect to the timely payment of the encouragement fee, even when taking into consideration the financial difficulties encountered by the club.

19. Bearing in mind the above, the Chamber further analysed whether other elements surrounding the matter may be taken into consideration. In this context, the Chamber first noted that pursuant to the addendum, which extended the validity of the contract until 30 June 2021, the player was not entitled to a salary raise, as the only financial retribution agreed upon was the payment of the encouragement fee. In other words, the Chamber considered that the payment of the encouragement fee was, for the player, the only financial consideration for accepting the extension of the contract. As such, the Chamber deemed that it was reasonable for the player to expect the payment of said encouragement fee within the set contractual deadline, i.e. by 1 September 2018.

20. With this being said, the Chamber underlined that the amount of EUR 100,000 represents a substantial sum, as it corresponds to approximately two and a half monthly salaries.

21. Moreover, the Chamber observed that the player sent two reminders and three default notices between 9 November 2018 and 31 December 2018, asking Astana to pay the encouragement fee. In this context, the Chamber noted that Astana informed the player that it was not able to pay the encouragement fee and that it would do so at a later stage.

22. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that Astana paid the amount of EUR 100,000 to the player on the same day as the termination letter, i.e. 10 January 2019. In this regard, the Chamber noted, on the one hand, that the player viewed this payment as bad faith, given that Astana probably had the financial capacity to pay said amount at an earlier stage, whilst on the other hand, Astana claimed to have made this payment upon receipt of the termination letter in order to keep the player at the club.

23. In this context, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that the amount of the payment, i.e. EUR 100,000, corresponds to the full amount of the encouragement fee. In addition, the Chamber was of the opinion that the timing of the payment, i.e. the same day as the termination letter, tended to demonstrate that said payment did in fact correspond to the payment of the full encouragement fee.

24. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the payment of the encouragement fee by Astana was late, as it was only made as a reaction to the termination of the contract by the player.

25. Therefore, the members of the DRC highlighted that, at the moment the player terminated the contract, the full amount of the encouragement fee had remained outstanding for more than 4 months. In these circumstances, the Chamber considered that the player could have legitimately lost faith in the ability and will of Astana to fulfill its contractual obligation in due course.

26. Consequently, and considering the situation of the player at the time of termination, the Chamber was of the opinion that the objective circumstances at the time did provide the player with just cause to terminate the employment contract.

27. In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC came to the conclusion that the player had terminated the contract on 10 January 2019, with just cause.

28. As an immediate consequence of such, the Chamber concluded at this point that the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant against the player and the Counter-Respondent 2 is rejected.

29. Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

30. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the player’s claim, in which he claimed the total amount of EUR 915,000 as compensation for breach of contract. The Chamber further noted that the player did not request any outstanding remuneration.

31. In continuation, 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, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

32. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent 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 the contract did not contain such a provision.

33. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

34. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract until 30 June 2021. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,215,000 (i.e. salaries of January 2019 until June 2021) serve as basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

35. In continuation, the Chamber verified 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 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.

36. In this context, the Chamber noted that the player had signed on 11 January 2019 an employment contract with the Croatian club, NK Osijek, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2022, by means of which he was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of EUR 13,200. The DRC noted that for the overlapping period, the player had been able to mitigate his damages in the amount of EUR 396,000.

37. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the mitigated compensation due to the player was EUR 819,000.

38. Moreover, taking into account art. 17 par.1 (ii), the DRC recalled that it had found that the player had unilaterally terminated the contract due to overdue payables and took note that the player had been able to mitigate his damages. Consequently, the Chamber decided that on top of the mitigated compensation, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had to pay to the player an additional compensation in the amount of EUR 121,500 corresponding to the equivalent of 3 monthly salaries of the player.

39. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the total amount of EUR 940,500 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

40. Having established the above, the Chamber then addressed the request of the player for the payment of outstanding bonuses in the amount of EUR 60,800. The Chamber considered that the request for said outstanding bonuses had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted in this regard.

41. In regard to the player’s claim for the payment of 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 100,000, the DRC recalled its constant practice and jurisprudence according to which a claim for interest only, on an amount which has already been paid, must be rejected.

42. Furthermore, the DRC 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.

43. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amount 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.

44. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant does not pay the amount due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, 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 the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

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

46. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is rejected. Equally and considering that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was, overall, found to be in breach of the contract, the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, Mr László Kleinheisler, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Football Club Astana, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 940,500.

3. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is rejected.

4. The counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.

5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail addresses as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amount mentioned under point 2. above.

6. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 2. 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).

7. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 2. above is not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 of the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is 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).

8. The ban mentioned in point 7. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

9. In the event that the aforementioned sum is 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 related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

Note relating to the appeal procedure:

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. 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