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 9 April 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 April 2020,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member

Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Manuel Marouan Da Costa Trindade, France,

represented by Mr Osama Al Sabbagh

as Claimant

against the club,

Al Ittihad, Saudi Arabia,

represented by Mr Jan Kleiner & Mr Luca Tarzia

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 5 January 2019, the French player, Mr Manuel Marouan Da Costa Trindade, (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) and the Saudi Arabian club, Al Ittihad (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 7 January 2019 until the end of the season 2020/2021, i.e. 30 June 2021. Item 2 of the contract provided for the possibility to extend the duration of the contract for one additional season, i.e. season 2021/2022.

2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to the following remuneration:

 For the period between 7 January and 30 June 2019:

o Sign-on fee: EUR 200,000 payable by no later than 15 January 2019;

o Salary: EUR 1,100,000 payable in one instalment of EUR 275,000 by no later than 15 January 2019, followed by 6 equal monthly instalments of EUR 137,500, between January and June 2019.

 For the season 2019/2020:

o Sign-on fee: EUR 100,000 payable by no later than 15 July 2019;

o Salary: EUR 2,100,000 payable in one instalment of EUR 300,000 by no later than 15 July 2019, followed by 12 equal monthly instalments of EUR 150,000, between July 2019 and June 2020.

 For the season 2020/2021:

o Salary: EUR 2,100,000 payable in one instalment of EUR 300,000 by no later than 15 July 2020, followed by 12 equal monthly instalments of EUR 150,000, between July 2020 and June 2021.

3. In addition to the above, the Claimant was also entitled to the following bonuses:

 EUR 100,000 to be paid on 30 June 2019 “if the first team of the Club is not relegated to the 2nd division in the Saudi Professional League, for its results in the field or based on a decision of SAFF, at the end of the season 2018/2019”;

 EUR 100,000 “if the first team of the Club reaches a top 4 (four) position in the league”;

 EUR 250,000 “if the first team of the Club wins the Championship”. In this case, the previous bonus of EUR 100,000 should the Respondent reach a top 4 position is not due to the Claimant ;

 EUR 250,000 “if the first team of the Club wins the Championships and all the players of the team receive a bonus payment higher than EUR 250,000, this higher amount is due to the Second Party instead of the amount of EUR 250,000”;

 EUR 150,000 “if the first team of the Club wins the AFC Champions League”;

 EUR 100,000 “if the first team of the Club wins the Kings Cup”;

 EUR 15,000 “for every 5 matches in which the first team of the Club does not concede a goal in the League”;

 Bonus payments “for official matches as per the club’s policy relating to the other players. No Bonus is paid for draw or friendly matches”.

4. Furthermore, the Respondent also undertook to provide the Claimant with the following benefits:

 Accommodation: “furnished luxury accommodation at a compound, selected by the Player for a maximum total cost of USD 50,000 per year. All costs of the accommodation for the Player will be borne by the Club.”

 Automobile: “two luxury cars, with full insurance cover and registration paid for by the Club, for the Player’s exclusive use. Normal running costs shall be borne by the Player (fuel, maintenance and other)”;

 Airfare tickets: “total of 8 (eight) round trip Business Class tickets on Paris/Frankfurt-Jeddah and Jeddah-Paris/Frankfurt per season. For the avoidance of doubt, when the Player takes up employment with the Club, the Club will provide flight ticket for the Player”.

5. Pursuant to item 3 of the contract, the parties agreed to comply and implement “the laws, circulars and regulations issued by SAFF, FIFA, the Confederation and the Saudi Professional League”.

6. In this context, item 8 of the contract provided the Respondent with the possibility to impose sanctions on the Claimant “in case of violation of his obligations stipulated in the contract or in case of violation of applicable regulations, provided that the Second Party is informed in writing beforehand, and the latter may respond according to regulations and rules, and all such decisions and sanctions by the First Party must be in accordance with FIFA rules. In particular, the First Party may impose penalties on the Second Party, in accordance with the Typical List of Penalties and Sanctions, which was provided in advance to the Second Party. The Second Party declares that he is aware, in particular, of the Rules and Regulations issued by the Professional Players Committee of SAFF and of the contents of the Typical List of Penalties and Sanctions. In case of any disciplinary proceeding against the Second Party, these proceedings must be in accordance with Article 10 of the mentioned Typical List of Penalties and Sanctions”.

7. By means of a letter dated 6 August 2019, the Claimant granted the Respondent 15 days to pay the salaries of June and July 2019, an advance payment and some outstanding bonuses in the total amount of EUR 802,500.

8. On 25 November 2019, the Respondent informed the Claimant of the imposition of a fine as a result of his misbehaviour “with the Chairman of Boards while his meeting with all the players after the Saudi League match on Sunday 24 November 2019 against Ittifaq club”, in the form of a deduction of 15% of his salary of November 2019. By means of a second letter dated 27 November 2019, the Respondent indicated that in addition to the “very unfortunate statements and verbal abuses made by you towards the Chairman of our club”, the Claimant had also “made some additional comments in social media, which were not helpful”. As a result, the Respondent informed the Claimant that he was excluded from the first team for a period of five days, during which he would train alone with the assistance of a professional coach. Finally, the Respondent stated that “this is by no means a punishment or sanction against you. We think this is the best, amicable and reasonably measure to help this situation calm down”.

9. On 27 November 2019, the Claimant contested the imposition of sanctions imposed by the Respondent. In this regard, the Claimant indicated that he was neither aware nor had he signed the rules and regulations invoked by the Respondent to impose said fines upon him. As such, the Claimant asked the Respondent to provide him with a copy of the rules and regulations within 3 days. With regard to the alleged misbehavior involving the Chairman of the Respondent, the Claimant stated that he “was only speaking gently to the Chairman, in spite of his frustration, due to the repeated violations of contract in terms of outstanding remuneration (EUR 845,000, for which I send you today a separate notification) and due to the repeated failure to solve paperwork problems such as the dependents’ health insurance/Iqama documents requests since June by the British International School of Jeddah (…)”. The Claimant further mentioned that following this discussion, the Chairman of the Respondent threatened to terminate the contract unilaterally.

10. On the same day, i.e. 27 November 2019, the Claimant put the Respondent in default, stating that the total amount of EUR 845,000 was still outstanding, that his family did not yet have a health insurance policy, in breach of the contract, and that his exclusion from the first team was unlawful. In these circumstances, the Claimant granted the Respondent 15 days to comply with the aforementioned. Following this default letter, it appears that the Claimant received a payment of EUR 300,000 on 28 November 2019, corresponding to the salaries of September and October 2019, and that the Claimant was re-integrated to the first team.

11. On 8 December 2019, the Respondent informed the Claimant of the imposition of another fine, in the form of a deduction of 30% of his salary of December 2019 for his misbehaviour “with the Chairman of Board besides the incitement that you are acting with the administrative staff, medical staff toward the chairman of boards on 08 December 2019. Plus, speaking through the social media while being the pre-match campaign during the King Cup’s match against Al Safaa Club on 07 December 2019 without any permission, which was unfortunately a repeated action of you in the same sporting season”.

12. On 10 December 2019, the Claimant rejected the sanction imposed by the Respondent, claiming it was “disproportionate by FIFA standards” and reiterated his request for the payment of the outstanding amounts.

13. On 11 December 2019, the Respondent asked the Claimant for more information, in particular pertaining to the nature of the bonuses requested by the Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent indicated that “any due payables will be settled immediately, if applicable”. Moreover, the Respondent invited the Claimant to “follow the procedure outlined in the applicable Regulations, more precisely in articles 21-23 thereof” with regard to the application of deductions to monthly salaries. Finally, the Respondent stated that it valued the professional collaboration with the Claimant as he was an important member of the team.

14. On 12 December 2019, the Claimant firmly rejected the imposition of fines, claiming they were “a poor attempt to reduce the past and future overdue remuneration”. In addition, the Claimant contested the need for further information in relation to the nature of the outstanding amounts due to him, given that this should be the Respondent’s responsibility. In this context, the Claimant reiterated his request for the payment of the outstanding remuneration.

15. On 15 December 2019, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract arguing that he had lost trust in the Respondent, given that “an amount equalling at least EUR 515,000 (not counting expenses) and overdue for over five months, since June and July 2019”.

16. On 10 January 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA.

17. In his claim, the Claimant explained that the overdue remuneration due to him over the six last months of the contractual relationship fluctuated between EUR 500,000 and over EUR 800,000. In this regard, the Claimant deemed that he had proven to be patient by not terminating the contract earlier.

18. The Claimant further emphasized that even the latest payment made by the Respondent in the amount of EUR 300,000, corresponding to the salaries of September and October 2019, had been paid with one and two months delays. With regard to the outstanding amounts yet to be paid, the Claimant noted that the Respondent never contested that these amounts were due to him. Instead, the Respondent imposed “disproportionate and unacceptable financial sanctions” upon him, with little justification.

19. Accordingly, the Claimant considered that he had terminated the contract with just cause on 15 December 2019. In light of the foregoing, the Claimant requested the following:

 Outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 740,000, plus expenses in the amount of EUR 30,000, which may be broken down as follows:

o EUR 100,000 as the sign-on fee due on 15 July 2019;

o EUR 300,000 as the advance payment due on 15 July 2019;

o EUR 15,000 as the “clean-sheet bonus” due on 30 June 2019;

o EUR 100,000 as the “non-relegation bonus” due on 30 June 2019;

o EUR 150,000 as the full monthly salary of November 2019;

o EUR 75,000 as half of the monthly salary of December 2019;

o EUR 30,000 as the reimbursement of expenses due on 30 June 2019.

 Compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 3,075,000.

20. In addition to the above, the Claimant further requested the payment of expenses for the residual value of the contract, i.e. until 30 June 2021, in the total amount of EUR 193,927, broken down as follows:

 EUR 70,000 as accommodation benefits;

 EUR 30,000 as car benefits, i.e. for renting two luxury cars over a year and a half;

 The Claimant held that only 3 business class airfare tickets were provided to him. As such, the Claimant requested EUR 43,927, corresponding to the value of 13 airfare tickets.

 EUR 20,000 as insurance and schooling fees for the Claimant’s family;

 EUR 30,000 as the relocation costs following the moving and the purchase of new furniture.

21. Moreover, the Claimant requested EUR 1,100,000 based on the “specificity of sport damages” and EUR 1,100,000 “in the unlikely event of a mitigation of damages by the Chamber” as additional compensation “in view of the egregious circumstances”.

22. Finally, the Claimant requested the payment of 5% interest p.a. on the aforementioned amounts to be calculated as from the due dates for the outstanding remuneration and as from the date of the contract termination for the compensation.

23. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s arguments and deemed that the latter had terminated the contract without just cause.

24. In particular, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had accepted that the requested amounts due in June and July 2019 would “be paid at a later stage”. In this regard, the Respondent highlighted that after the initial default notice of 6 August 2019, the Claimant did not request said amounts until the “disciplinary problems” which began in November 2019. In these circumstances, the Respondent argued that the Claimant had accepted to be paid later.

25. With regard to the reimbursement of expenses in the amount of EUR 30,000, the Respondent deemed that it had already paid all expenses and that the Claimant failed to provide any evidence thereof.

26. Moreover, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s bad behaviour, in particular the confrontation with the Chairman in front of the whole team, led to disciplinary proceedings which resulted in several fines in accordance with the contract and the sanction list of the club, which was agreed upon by the Claimant when signing the contract. In this regard, the Respondent emphasised that the Claimant did not appeal the disciplinary sanctions.

27. In addition, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant’s termination of the contract was “sudden” and “out of the blue” as the Respondent was “genuinely and in good faith analysing the various financial demands.” In this respect, the Respondent argued that it asked the player several times for a detailed breakdown of the outstanding amounts.

28. Finally, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant has a duty to mitigate his damages, and that should the Claimant be entitled to compensation, “a very substantial reduction should be made” and that “if, suddenly, the Player would now sign a contract with Trabzonspor under which, for example, he would only earn an amount of EUR 500,000.00, he would have clearly failed to mitigate his damages”.

29. After being requested, the Claimant informed FIFA that he concluded an employment contract with the Turkish club, Trabzonspor, valid as from 31 January 2020 until 31 May 2020 (with an option to extend), pursuant to which he was entitled to a total remuneration of EUR 40,000. The employment contract further stipulated that in case the Claimant participates in at least 10 games, the contract will be extended with a yearly salary of EUR 450,000.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as: the DRC or the Chamber) 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 10 January 2020. Consequently, the November 2019 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 members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2020 edition), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a French player and a Saudi Arabian 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 (March 2020 edition) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 January 2020, the January 2020 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.

4. With the above 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 facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In this respect, the Chamber firstly acknowledged that it was undisputed that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed an employment contract on 5 January 2019, valid as from 7 January 2019 until 30 June 2021. In continuation, the Chamber noted that it was also undisputed that the Claimant was entitled, inter alia, to remuneration and benefits as set out at points I. 2, 3 and 4 above.

6. What is more, the Chamber further noted that on 15 December 2019, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the employment contract with the Respondent, alleging that the amount of EUR 515,000, excluding expenses, had remained outstanding for over 5 months, which resulted in a loss of trust in the Respondent.

7. Summarising the parties’ respective positions in this dispute, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant, on the one hand, claimed that the Respondent had breached the contract by not paying him the total amount of EUR 515,000 for over 5 months, despite numerous reminders and default notices, whilst on the other hand, the Respondent affirmed that the Claimant had accepted to be paid later and that the Claimant’s behaviour had led to the imposition of fines, which were contractually agreed upon. In this context, the Chamber also noted that although the Respondent considered to have already paid all expenses to the Claimant, it was still in the process of analysing the financial demands of the Claimant in good faith at the time of the termination.

8. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the main issue to be analysed in the present case is whether the Claimant in fact had a just cause to unilaterally and prematurely terminate the contract with the Respondent on 15 December 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant based the termination of the contract on the non-payment of EUR 515,000, corresponding to the sign-on fee of EUR 100,000, the advance payment of EUR 300,000, the “clean-sheet bonus” of EUR 15,000 and the “non-relegation bonus” of EUR 100,000. The Chamber further noted that said amounts were due between 30 June and 15 July 2019.

12. On the other hand, the Chamber thoroughly analysed the position of the Respondent. First, the Chamber noted the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant had agreed that certain amounts would be paid at a later stage.

13. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that the contract clearly stipulated the set deadlines for the amounts to be paid, i.e. salary by the end of each month, the sign-on fee and the advance payment by 15 July 2019, the bonuses by the last day of the respective season. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent failed to provide pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which may justify a late payment of said amounts. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the members of the DRC were of the opinion that the various default notices sent by the Claimant, by means of which he requested the immediate payment of the relevant amounts, clearly demonstrated that in fact he did not agree with payments at a later stage.

14. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Respondent had decided to impose fines on the Claimant, in the form of deductions of 15% of his salary of November 2019 and 30% of his salary of December 2019. In this context, the Chamber noted that the reason invoked by the Respondent for the imposition of said fines was the Claimant’s misbehaviour “with the Chairman of Board”.

15. Irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the Chamber first wished to point out that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players.

16. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber underlined that the fines, corresponding to 15% and 30% of the Claimant’s monthly salary, constituted substantial amounts. In continuation, the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant contested the imposition of both fines. In this regard and based on the documentation on file, the Chamber noted that the Claimant does not appear to have had the possibility to defend his case. Consequently, the DRC decided that the fines imposed by the Respondent cannot be accepted as valid.

17. Finally, the Chamber deemed that the outstanding amounts, such as requested by the Claimant in the default notices were sufficiently broken down, in order for the Respondent to understand the nature of said amounts.

18. In view of all the above and based on the information and documentation on file, the members of the Chamber agreed that the arguments put forward by the Respondent to justify the non-payment of remuneration and the deduction from the salaries of the Claimant cannot be accepted as valid.

19. Therefore, the members of the DRC highlighted that, at the moment the Claimant terminated the contract, an amount equaling to approximately 3,5 monthly salaries was outstanding. In these circumstances and taking into account the various default notices sent to the Respondent, the Chamber considered that the Claimant could have legitimately lost faith in the ability and will of the Respondent to fulfill its contractual obligation in due course.

20. 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 Claimant with just cause to terminate the employment contract.

21. In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC came to the conclusion that the Claimant had terminated the contract on 15 December 2019, with just cause.

22. Having established that the Respondent 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 Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent 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. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant’s claim in which he requested outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 740,000, plus expenses of EUR 30,000, as well as EUR 3,075,000 as compensation for breach of contract, EUR 193,927 as expenses until the term of the contract, EUR 1,100,000 based on the “specificity of sport damages” and EUR 1,100,000 “in the unlikely event of a mitigation of damages by the Chamber” as additional compensation “in view of the egregious circumstances”.

24. In this regard, the Chamber considered relevant to recall that the sign-on fee, the advance payment and the salary of November 2019 were outstanding in full.

25. With regard to the payment of the “clean-sheet bonus” and the “non-relegation bonus”, the Chamber deemed that the Claimant had submitted pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, allowing to demonstrate that said bonuses were due. This being said, the Chamber analysed the Claimant’s request for the payment of EUR 30,000 as expenses and concluded that, based on the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, there was no supporting documentation relating to said expenses. Consequently, the DRC decided to reject this part of the Claimant’s claim.

26. Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 15 December 2019, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 665,000.

27. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the total amount of outstanding remuneration, i.e. EUR 665.000, as of the due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:

 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 15,000 as from 1 July 2019;

 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 100,000 as from 1 July 2019;

 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 100,000 as from 16 July 2019;

 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 300,000 as from 16 July 2019;

 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 150,000 as from 1 December 2019.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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.

31. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract until its term, i.e. 30 June 2021. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 3,150,000 (i.e. salaries of December 2019 to June 2021) serve as basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

32. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.

33. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and the Turkish club, Trabzonspor, concluded an employment contract valid as from 31 January 2020 until 31 May 2020, according to which he was entitled to a total remuneration of EUR 40,000. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the employment contract further stipulated that in case the Claimant participates in at least 10 games, the contract will be extended with a yearly salary of EUR 450,000.

34. The DRC thus noted that for the overlapping period, the Claimant had been able to mitigate his damages in the amount of EUR 40,000. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the mitigated compensation due to the Claimant was EUR 3,110,000.

35. Having established the above, 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 Claimant should in principle be entitled to an additional compensation in the amount of EUR 450,000 corresponding to the equivalent of 3 monthly salaries.

36. This being said, the Chamber recalled that pursuant to art. 17 par. 1 (ii), the “overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.” Considering the residual value of the contract in the amount of EUR 3,150,000 (cf. point II. 31.), the members of the Chamber emphasised that the additional compensation due to the Claimant may not exceed said amount.

37. In continuation, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s request of EUR 193,927, corresponding to benefits until the term of the contract, i.e. 30 June 2021.

38. After a thorough analysis of the documentation on file, the DRC deemed that the Respondent cannot be held liable for the payment of hypothetical future expenses, which will never occur considering that the contract is terminated. As such, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for the payment of accommodation and car benefits, full insurance and schooling for his family as well as moving and purchase of new furniture.

39. On the other hand, with regard to the Claimant’s claim pertaining to airfare tickets in the amount of EUR 43,927, the Chamber decided, on the basis of the information provided by FIFA Travel and taking into account that said tickets were meant to be provided to him and the members of his family, that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of CHF 7,840 for 4 airfare tickets from Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) to Paris (France) in business class.

40. With this being established, the Chamber then addressed the request of the Claimant for the payment of EUR 1,100,000 based on the “specificity of sport damages”. In this respect, the Chamber considered that the request for said amount had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted in this regard.

41. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the total amount of EUR 3,150,000 and CHF 7,840 to the Claimant, which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

42. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 3,150,000, as of the date of claim, i.e. 10 January 2020, until the date of effective payment.

43. 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.

44. In this regard, the DRC 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.

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

46. 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.

47. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Manuel Marouan Da Costa Trindade, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Al Ittihad, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 665,000, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:

a. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 15,000 as from 1 July 2019;

b. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 100,000 as from 1 July 2019;

c. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 100,000 as from 16 July 2019;

d. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 300,000 as from 16 July 2019;

e. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 150,000 as from 1 December 2019.

3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 3,150,000 and CHF 7,840, plus 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 3,150,000 as from 10 January 2020 until the date of effective payment.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the email address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts plus interest mentioned under points 2. and 3. above.

6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with points 2. and 3. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

7. In the event that the amounts due in accordance with points 2. and 3. above are not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent 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).

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

9. In the event that the amounts due in accordance with points 2. and 3. above 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 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 article 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.

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Avenue de Beaumont 2

1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer