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 20 May 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 20 May 2020,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Deputy Chairman

Jerome Perlemuter (France), member

Angela Collins (Australia), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

Contractual basis

1. The Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player) and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 7 January 2019 until 30 December 2019.

2. In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to the following remuneration:

 USD 60,000 as advance payment “upon signing the contract and applying medical examination”;

 USD 11,666 as monthly salary payable at the end of the month.

3. In addition, the contract, inter alia, foresaw that the player “receives bonus amounting USD 15,000 in case team is escalated to the major league.”

4. Furthermore, the contract stipulates the following:

“1- It is possible to amend some provisions of the contract with consent of parties together with signature on any addition or deletion.

2- Parties may mutually agree on terminating the contract before expiry of term established herein.

[The Respondent] may terminate the contract against payment of 2 month salary to the [Claimant].”

5. Art. 11 of the contract foresaw that “1. The two parties shall endeavour to settle their disputes relating to this contract amicably. 2. The Chamber for settlement of Disputes of FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D is the competent jurisdiction for settlement of the disputes relating to the interpretation and execution of this contract.”

6. According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS), the 2018/2019 season in Country D finished on 31 May 2019 and the 2019/2020 season started on 24 August 2019.

7. On 16 September 2019, the Claimant signed a new employment agreement with the Club of Country F, Club G, valid from 6 September 2019 to 31 December 2019 according to which he earned a monthly salary of USD 5,250.

Requests of the parties

8. On 3 January 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim of FIFA and requested the following:

(i) “determine that, on 17 August 2019, [the club] had overdue payables towards [the player] for the purpose of article 14bis of the RSTP, at least in the amount of the monthly remunerations of June and July 2019;

(ii) Determine that [the player] had just case to terminate the employment agreement on 17 August 2019;

(iii) Order [the club] to immediately pay the total amount of USD 81,666.69;

(iv) Order [the club] to pay interest for late payment over the amounts due, as follows:

a. 5% p.a. over USD 11,666.67 as from 30 June 2019 and until effective payment;

b. 5% p.a. over USD 11,666.67 as from 31 July 2019 and until effective payment;

c. 5% p.a. over USD 6,397.85 as from 31 August 2019 and until effective payment;

d. 5% p.a. over USD 51,935.50 as from 31 August 2019 and until effective payment;

(v) Order [the club] to pay USD 15,000 if and when their first senior team is promoted to the major league upon the conclusion of the 2019/2020 season;

(vi) Impose any sanction to the club as considered appropriate.”

9. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent requested primarily that the claim be considered inadmissible. Alternatively, the Respondent requested that it shall be deemed that the contract was mutually terminated by the parties on 19 May 2019 upon the player’s departure to Country B, and that therefore no compensation is payable and the claim of the player for the salaries of June and July 2019 shall be rejected.

10. Should the DRC deem that any amounts are due to the player, the Respondent argued that only the month of June 2019 may be awarded.

Competence of FIFA and admissibility of the claim

11. The Respondent disputed FIFA’s competence to deal with the present dispute.

12. Making reference to art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: NDRC) regulations and FIFA Circular 1010, the Respondent sustained that the “Chamber for settlement of Disputes of FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D” (hereinafter: NDRC of Country D) meets all the relevant prerequisites and should therefore be competent to hear the present matter.

13. In fact, the Respondent provided a copy of the Football Federation of Country D statutes and the NDRC of Country D according to which said body is impartial, guarantees fair hearing and the equal representation of players and clubs representatives. In this respect, the Respondent declared that according to art.6-10 of the Country D NRDC regulations, the chamber is composed as follows:

- 1 Chairman and 1 Deputy Chairman, whom must have legal qualifications and are appointed by the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D board. They shall not be board members of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D nor of a club.

- 6 members minimum, with at least:

(a) 3 clubs’ representatives. They shall not be board members of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D nor of a club;

(b) 3 players’ representatives appointed by the Country D players’ union. They shall not be board members of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D nor of a club.

14. As to the competence, the Claimant referred to art. Article 15 of the contract, according to which:

“1. The two parties declare that they have reviewed this contract and the regulations and circulars of FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D and FIFA before signing it and that they are bind [sic] to abide thereby.

2. Any provision herein that is contradictory to the laws, regulations and circular of FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D, FIFA [...] shall be considered null and void.”

15. The Claimant came to conclusion that it is “undisputable that the Parties expressly provided for the application of the FIFA statutes and regulations to the execution of the Employment Agreement and therefore to any dispute arising thereof.”

Overview of the case

16. On 6 January 2019, the Claimant and the Respondent (hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties) signed an employment contract, valid as of 7 January 2019 until 30 December 2019. The parties agreed on, inter alia, a monthly remuneration in the amount of USD 11,666 (cf. I.1 and I.2 above).

17. According to the Claimant, on 27 May 2019, he received a letter from the Respondent, whereby the latter informed him of its intention terminate the contract as established in the termination clause (cf. I.4 above). On 30 May 2019, the Claimant informed the Respondent that “any agreement regarding the termination of the Employment Agreement would be subject to the previous payment of the agreed compensation”.

18. Between 9 and 12 July 2019, the parties exchanged several What’s App messages regarding the contract. The Claimant maintained that the Respondent omitted to pay him the two monthly salaries due as per the termination clause in the contract and therefore he refused to sign the termination agreement.

19. On 26 July 2019 and 30 July 2019, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, notifying it about the allegedly outstanding salaries of June 2019 and July 2019. Moreover, in the same correspondence, the Claimant rejected the termination and insisted on the execution of the employment contract “until 31 December 2019”, asking to be reinstated to the “Club’s senior side and be allowed to immediately resume his playing and training activities.”

20. On 31 July 2019, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent regarding the two outstanding salaries of June and July 2019, setting a time limit of 15 days in order for the club to remedy the default.

21. In its reply on 31 July 2019, the Respondent requested the Claimant to provide his “current residence so [it] can issue the travel tickets to join training of the first team in the Country E urgently.”

22. On 1 August 2019, the Claimant sent a notification to the Respondent, informing that he will join the team upon several conditions: (1) outstanding salaries will be paid, (2) appropriate immigration status, (3) valid registration, (4) reintegration with the first team, however to no avail. In particular, the player stressed out that he was subjected to “extreme pressure and duress” with regard to his employment with the Respondent.

23. Further exchange of correspondence took place between the parties on 7 August 2019, 9 August 2019, and 16 August 2019.

24. On 17 August 2019, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the employment contract, alleging that the Respondent “failed to complete payment of the two outstanding remunerations (June and July 2019).” Moreover, the Claimant pointed out his tentative dismissal by the Respondent and the order “to remain in his country”. According to the Claimant, the Respondent clearly demonstrated “its absolute lack of interest in the [Claimant’s] services.”

25. The Claimant maintains that he terminated the contract with just cause based on art. 14 and 14bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, because “the relationship has become untenable in view of the circumstances.”

26. With regard to the calculation of the compensation, the Claimant disputes the applicability of the termination clause, since it is “clearly disproportionate and disregards the principle of equal treatment between the Parties.” For the purposes of the calculation of the compensation, the Claimant requests the application of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and asks for the residual value of the contract.

27. In its reply as to the substance of the dispute, the Respondent explained that the Claimant had always received his dues up until his departure to Country B, on 19 May 2019, when the parties started to discuss a mutual termination which could not be agreed. The Respondent stated that it acknowledged receipt of the Claimant’s default notices and that requested his return to Country D. In particular, the Respondent stressed that it is only as from 26 July 2019 that the player started to express his desire to return to Country D under certain conditions, before finally terminating the contract and signing with a new club.

28. As such, the Respondent is of the opinion that the parties de facto terminated the contract since the Claimant’s departure on 19 May 2019, and that as such no amount is due to the Claimant.

29. In case any amount is awarded, the Respondent emphasised that according to the terms of the contract, the salaries are due on the 7th day of the following month. Therefore, the Respondent was of the opinion that as the player terminated in August 2019, only the June 2019 salary would actually be owed to the player.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred also as: DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 January 2020. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2019; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition March 2020) the Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Player of Country B and a Club of Country D.

3. However, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies stating that an independent arbitration tribunal in line with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in fine, exists within the framework of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D. In addition, the Respondent referred to art. 11 of the contract which stipulates that:” “1. The two parties shall endeavour to settle their disputes relating to this contract amicably. 2. The Chamber for settlement of Disputes of FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D is the competent jurisdiction for settlement of the disputes relating to the interpretation and execution of this contract.”

4. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant considered that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.

5. While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the DRC deemed paramount to outline that one of the basic condition that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competence to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national arbitration tribunal or national court derives from a clear reference in the employment contract.

6. In this respect, the Chamber noted that art. 11 of the contract contained a clear and specific reference to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC of Country D (cf. I.5 above).

7. In continuation, the DRC emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the March 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Chamber is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the DRC made reference to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.

8. In this respect, the DRC turned its attention to the principle of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle is one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).” In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list”.

9. On account of the above, the Chamber went on to examine the documentation presented by the Respondent and noted that the Board of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D appoints both Chairman and deputy Chairman. As such, the members of the DRC concluded that the Chairman and deputy Chairman are not elected by consensus of player and club representatives. Therefore, the Chamber was unanimous in its conclusion that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D does not respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.

10. As a consequence of the above-mentioned elements, the DRC was of the opinion that it could not be concluded that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FOOTBALL FEDERATION OF COUNTRY D is an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.

11. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge 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. The DRC wished to underline that such conclusion was consistent with past decisions reached by the Dispute Resolution Chamber as to the functioning of the NDRC of Country D.

12. Having established the above, the DRC analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition March 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 January 2020, the January 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

13. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Dispute Resolution 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.

14. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as from 7 January 2019 until 30 December 2019. In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, monthly salary of USD 11,666 payable at the end of the month, as well an advance payment of USD 60,000 payable at the signature of the contract.

15. Then the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables toward him corresponding to the salaries of June and July 2019 and further requested compensation for breach of the contract in the amount of USD 81,666.69.

16. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 27 May 2019, the club had sent a draft termination agreement to the player, and that on 30 May 2019 the player refused to agree to a termination.

17. In addition, the DRC duly noted that the parties discussed during the month of July 2019 the possibility to terminate the contract, without success.

18. Then, the Chamber observed that on 31 July 2019, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the salaries of June and July 2019, setting a 15 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default and in which he mentioned that in the absence of payment of the aforementioned amounts, he would deemed the contract as terminated by the club.

19. The DRC observed that on 17 August 2019, the player subsequently terminated the contract in view of the absence of compliance from the club.

20. The Chamber then observed that the Respondent was of the opinion that the contract had de facto been terminated by the parties on 19 May 2019, upon the player’s departure to Country B.

21. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the club argued that only the salary of June 2019 should be awarded to the Claimant, if any, in view of the fact that the contract was terminated in August 2019 prior to the salary of July 2019 having become due.

22. In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed that the main issue at stake in this current matter was to determine whether the contract had been terminated with just cause by the Claimant, and to determine the consequences of said termination.

23. In this respect, the Chamber remarked that the club had, since 27 May 2019, notified to the player its will to terminate their contractual relationship, but that their negotiations were not fruitful.

24. In particular, the DRC remarked that the Respondent had expressed that the contract had de facto been terminated on 19 May 2019, upon the player’s return to Country B after the end of football season of Country D 2018/2019.

25. The Chamber emphasized that the return of the Claimant to his home country after the end of the season did not constitute a termination of the contract, as his return occurred in or around a week prior to the Respondent notifying its intent to put an end to the relationship. The DRC underlined that there was no evidence on file that would suggest that the Claimant had indeed left Country D with the will to stop honoring his contractual duties, but that the Claimant rather travelled back to his home country as part of his so-called end of season break.

26. Therefore, the DRC dismissed this particular argument of the Respondent, and determined that the contract was still valid and binding after 19 May 2019.

27. Then, the Chamber took note that it remained uncontested that the salary of June had not been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant and remained overdue, and that the Respondent had not provided any valid reason to the withholding of this amount.

28. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Claimant deemed that the salary of July 2019 had also fallen due, whilst the Respondent argued that said salary fell due on 7 August 2019, and was of the opinion that is fell due after the player’s unilateral termination.

29. Having paid particular attention to the evidence of file, the Chamber recalled that the player terminated the contract on 17 August 2019, and that the contract foresaw that any salary would become due at the end of each respective month, and therefore overdue on the first day of the following month.

30. As such, the DRC dismissed the argumentation of the Respondent in this regard, and determined that upon termination of the contract by the Claimant on 17 August 2019, the salaries of June 2019 and July 2019 were overdue.

31. Recalling the contents of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations according to which “in case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player sill be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligations”, the Chamber duly noted that upon sending his default notice on 31 July 2019, the salary of June 2019 was overdue, but the salary of July 2019 was not yet overdue.

32. As such, the DRC acknowledged that the prerequisites of art. 14bis were not met. However, the Chamber observed that in August 2019, the Claimant had showed a willingness to return to the Respondent and resume his duties, but that the Respondent had, despite several injunctions, to pay the salaries of June 2019 and July 2019, the latter having become due in the meantime.

33. Recalling its extensive jurisprudence on the matter, the Chamber emphasized that the timely payment of the remuneration foreseen in an employment contract constitutes one of the fundamental rights of an employee. In particular, the DRC highlighted that in the present case, the Respondent had not provided any valid reason as to the absence of payment of the salaries of June and July 2019, this despite the numerous remainders of the player.

34. Consequently, and in view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the player had just cause to terminate the contract on 17 August 2019, and that the club has to bear the consequences of the early termination of the employment relationship.

35. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the DRC focused its attention on the consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC 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 contract.

36. First of all, the DRC judge reverted to the Claimant’s claim by which he requested the award of a total amount of USD 81,666.69, which included the salaries of June and July 2019 that were outstanding before the date of termination.

37. Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 17 August 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 USD 23,332, corresponding salaries of June and July 2019.

38. In addition, taking into account the player’s request and its well-established jurisprudence, the Chamber decided that the club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amounts of USD 23,332 until the date of effective payment as follows:

a. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,666 as from 1 July 2019 until the date of effective payment; and

b. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,666 as from 1 August 2019 until the date of effective payment

39. In continuation, the DRC 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 DRC judge 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.

40. 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 DRC remarked that a termination clause was foreseen in the contract (cf. I.4 above), but that the clause was only offering a possibility to terminate the contract to the club, without providing reciprocity to the player.

41. Consequently, and in line with its jurisprudence on unilateral and potestative termination clauses, determined that this clause could not be applied to the matter at hand.

42. As a consequence, the members of the DRC 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 DRC recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

43. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the DRC proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract until 30 December 2019. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 58,330 shall serve as basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

44. In continuation, the DRC 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. In this respect, the DRC deemed it necessary to refer to the first sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player signed a new contract by the time of the decision, the value of the new contract for the period corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated contract shall be deducted from the residual value of the contract that was terminated early (the ”Mitigated Compensation”).

45. In this regard, the DRC noted that on 16 September 2019, the Claimant signed a new employment agreement with the Club of Country F, Club G, valid from 6 September 2019 to 31 December 2019 according to which he earned a monthly salary of USD 5,250.

46. Therefore, the Chamber determined that the mitigated compensation corresponded to USD 37,330.

47. Moreover, taking into account art. 17 par.1 lit. ii), the DRC recalled that it in case of a termination due to overdue remuneration where a player has been able to mitigate his damages, an “additional compensation” corresponding to 3 monthly salaries shall be awarded to said player, bearing in mind that the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.

48. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD 58,330 to the Claimant.

49. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of decision, as per the Claimant’s request, i.e. 20 May 2020, until the date of effective payment.

50. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II.12 above, 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.

51. 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.

52. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts 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.

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

54. The DRC judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.

*****

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 45 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 23,332 plus interest as follows:

a. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,666 as from 1 July 2019 until the date of effective payment; and

b. 5% interest p.a. on the amount of USD 11,666 as from 1 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.

4. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 45 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 58,330 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 May 2020 until the date of effective payment.

5. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.

6. 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 mentioned under point 2. and 3. above.

7. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with point 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).

8. In the event that the amounts due in accordance with point 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 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).

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

10. In the event that the amounts due in accordance with point 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 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