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 5 December 2019

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 December 2019,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay & Netherlands), member

Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

Stefano La Porta (Italy), member

Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member

on the claim presented by the club,

Henan FC, China PR,

represented by Mr Gauthier Bouchat & Mr Sven Demeulemeester

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the player,

Javier Patino Lachica, Philippines,

represented by Mr Marco Consumo

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

and the club,

Burinam United, Thailand,

represented by Mr Menno Teunissen & Mr Thomas Spee

as intervening party

regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 20 January 2015, the Thai club, Buriram FC (hereinafter: the intervening party) and the Chinese club, Henan FC (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the transfer agreement) for the definitive transfer of the Filipino player, Javier Patino Lachica (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant) from the former to the latter.

2. In accordance with the transfer agreement, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was to pay to the intervening party the total amount of USD 1,200,000 by 30 January 2015.

3. On an unknown date, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2018.

4. In accordance with the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was entitled to the following:

a. For the season 2017, USD 2,000,000 annually paid in 12 monthly installments as from January 2017;

b. For the season 2018, USD 2,000,000 annually paid in 12 monthly installments as from January 2018;

c. “If the player participate in training and matches in full work attendance arranged by club, the basic monthly salaries USD 166,666.7 for the last month will be paid on 20‘" of this month.”;

d. A sign on fee of USD 500,000 payable on 10 March 2017.

5. Art. 2 of the contract provided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent could terminate the contract “in accordance to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]’s competence, performance, conditions and/or the club’s technical/tactical arrangements and/or other needs.” Said article also provided that if such termination was to occur between 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would be entitled to USD 2,000,000 and if the termination was to occur between 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2018, he would be entitled to USD 1,000,000. “in any case, the compensation the player receives shall not exceed 50% of the player’s remaining contract value”.

6. In accordance with art. 8 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had the obligation to :

a. Para. 1 (5) “Keep fit and good athletic state and exert physical strength and skill to maximum degree”;

b. Para. 1 (8) “Take the medical examination, physical monitoring, vaccination, precaution, and injury treatment arranged by the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent], and report the injury and recovery progress in time to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”;

c. Para. 2 (17) “If the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] does not receive necessary treatment as requested, and also use sickness or injury as excuse and refuse to participate in training, matches and/ or other activities, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] can impose punishment on the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] according to this contract or rules and disciplines of the team. For each occurrence, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] has the right to impose a fine (or penalty) of USD 5,400. If it affects the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]’s normal training and matches, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] will not pay the salaries during the period when the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] does not participate in training and matches. If the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] does not participating in training and/or matches arranged by the club up to five days, it shall be deemed as fundamental breach of contract by the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]. In addition to the imposition of punishment according to this contract and the rules and disciplines of the team, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] is entitled to terminate this Contract based on justified reason»;

d. Para. 3 “If the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] constitutes fundamental breach of the Contract or violates any agreement up to three times or more, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] has right to terminate contract based on this justified reason, and the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] shall pay indemnification to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent], which is the total amount of transfer fee, agent fee, legal fee paid by the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] due to the transfer of the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] as well as the salaries, sign-on fees and bonuses that the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] pays to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] in accordance with this Contract (whether actually paid or not)”.

7. According to art. 10 para. 1 of the contract: “During the term of this contract, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] can transfer or loan the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] to any third party, if such transfer, loan has resulted in the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] receiving monthly basic salary not lower than 70% as stated in Article 5 Par. 2 of this contract. The [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] shall unconditionally agree to the transfer of loan. Otherwise the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] has right to demand premature termination of contract based on this as justified reason and demand the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] to pay penalty according to Article 8(3) of this contract.”

8. Art. 11 of the contract provided the following:

a. Para. 1 “In case that the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] breaches the contract and cancels the Contract or concludes an invalid contract with the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] due to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s reason which causes less of the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant], and/or if the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] i) delays any of the payments in this Contract for more than 3 months; ii) fails to register the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] in official competitions, iii) does not allow the [Respondent */ Counter-Claimant] to train with the other players of the Senior First Professional Team, iv) and/or the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] terminates the present contract with justified cause, in all these cases the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] shall have the right to terminate the contract and the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] will have to pay a penalty to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] and the penalty amount is subject to this Contract.”;

b. Para. 2 “In case that the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] cancels the Contract without justified reason, according to relate rules and regulations of FIFA, the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] shall compensate the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] for damage incurred to the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]. The indemnisation is calculated in accordance with Article 8 Par.3 of this Contract. The club which the player is transferred into shall bear joint and several liability together with the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]. The [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] has right to request for require FIFA and/or CFA for additional sports punishment due to the player’s breach of the Contract.”

9. On 3 February 2018, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the intervening party signed a loan agreement (hereinafter: the loan agreement) for the temporary transfer of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant from the former to the latter valid as from 4 February 2018 until 30 November 2018. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not sign the loan agreement.

10. In accordance with the loan agreement, the intervening party would have been responsible for the salaries of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

11. In this respect, an employment contract (hereinafter: the draft contract) between the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the intervening party was drafted, which was not signed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, valid as from 4 February 2018 until 30 November 2018.

12. According to the draft contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would have been entitled to a salary of USD 30,000 per month.

13. On 4 February 2018, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the loan agreement had been signed, and informing the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the intervening party would pay him USD 30,000 per month while the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would complete his salary to make it reach 70% of the amount he earned with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in accordance with art. 10 para.1 of the contract.

14. On the same day, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s representative replied that it did not agree with the interpretation of the contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had no obligation to agree to the loan, especially with a lower salary.

15. On the same day, and following the email of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent invited the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to sign the loan agreement, to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant refused as he first needed to be provided with the draft contract between him and the intervening party to assess it. Upon being provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with the draft contract between the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the intervening party, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that it would not sign the draft contract with intervening party.

16. On 5 February 2018, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant complained to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that it had provided the intervening party with a copy of the contract, and invited the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to inform the intervening party that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was still injured “and not fit to play for a month”.

17. On 14 February 2018, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, via his counsel, unilaterally terminated the contract arguing that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had breached art. 8 para. 1 (5) and (8) as well as art. 8 para. 2 (17) and art. 10 para. 1 of the contract.

18. On 15 February 2018, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant replied to the termination arguing that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s representative did not have a valid power of attorney and on the same day, said representative provided a power of attorney signed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

19. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the player in front of FIFA for breach of contract requesting the total amount of USD 5,700,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as form 14 February 2018 corresponding to:

a. USD 1,200,000 as transfer fee paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the intervening party;

b. USD 4,000,000 corresponding to the total value of the salaries due under the contract of USD 2,000,000 for each year;

c. USD 500,000 as sign on fee;

d. Sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant;

e. Procedural costs at the expense of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

20. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract arguing that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had refused to sign the draft contract with the intervening party, while the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that the loan was not an option to be accepted by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant but an obligation in accordance with art. 10 of the contract. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further added that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant refused to join the intervening party “without any valid reason” and that in accordance with art. 10 para. 1 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the contract and that in accordance with art. 8 para. 3 the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had to pay a penalty to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

21. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was not injured contrary to the affirmation of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in his letter dated 5 February 2018 as the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that it conducted a medical examination on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant which revealed no injury.

22. In reply to the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA requesting the total amount of USD 3,000,000, corresponding to:

a. USD 250,000 as outstanding remuneration for the salaries of January 2018 (USD 166,666.7) and half of February 2018 (USD 83,333.3), as the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that he was unable to have access to his Chinese bank account since the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not provide to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant an official document stating that all the taxes on the salaries had already been paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant could not forward such document to the bank. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that those salaries could have been paid, but that he was unable to check it;

b. USD 1,750,000 as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the residual value of the contract;

c. USD 1,000,000 as a “supplementary compensation of six months salary […] in accordance with art. 337 c §3 of the Swiss Code of Obligation”;

d. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further requested that the club be ordered to provide him with “the fiscal payment demonstrating the payment of taxes”.

23. On the facts of the case, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that in July 2017 he suffered an injury which led him to receive surgery on his knee on 11 July 2017. He held that because of the careless attitude of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent which made him train more than necessary while he was still recovering, he relapsed into his injury.

24. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, due to the proximity of the closing of the transfer window, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was pressuring him into signing the loan agreement while he was not even provided at first with the draft contract with the intervening party. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant emphasised that he was not in direct contact with the intervening party during that time.

25. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that since the termination was sent by a lawyers’ firm which did not have a valid power of attorney at that time, it could not be considered valid and that in any case, he considered that he was effectively notified of the termination on 18 February 2018 via a letter dated 15 February 2018.

26. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further considered that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no just cause to terminate the contract as art. 10 para.1 of the contract consisted in “the illicit deprivation of the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]’s freedom to decide on the terms of his employment as well as his freedom of selecting the employer”. He considered that it was his right to deny the loan and to request to stay in the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

27. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant added that his salary would have been lowered considerably without his consent due to the loan.

28. On his injury, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant denied having lied about his state, and held that he was in the recovery process of his previous injury and that the intervening party should have been made aware of that.

29. In its replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that the salaries of January and February 2018 had been paid to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and provided payment receipts in this regard.

30. In regards to art. 10 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed the contract willingly and was aware of the existence of this article.

31. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent reiterated his other arguments.

32. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed its request for relief (cf. para 22 above), but alternatively and should FIFA consider that it had terminated the contract without just cause, then it requested that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would be entitled to USD 875,000 in accordance with art. 2 of the contract. Art. 2 entitled the player to USD 1,000,000 which should not be superior to 50% of the residual value, hence the Claimant / Counter-Respondent reduced it to USD 875,000.

33. In his duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reiterated his arguments, and amended his claim, acknowledging that he received the salaries of January and February 2018. His claim remained the same as to the rest, claiming the total amount of USD 2,750,000.

34. The intervening party held that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had assured it of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s consent to be loaned, but that was not the case, so the loan was never signed by the parties.

35. The intervening party further held that it was contacted by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant following the termination of the contract by Claimant / Counter-Respondent and not before that. Following that, the intervening party requested further information to assure that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was free of any contract.

36. It also underlined that it was not a party to the current proceedings but was only contacted as an intervening party, and that it did not induce the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, since the contract was terminated by Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

37. According to the information currently available on the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player signed an employment contract with the intervening party valid as from 1 May 2018 until 30 November 2020, with a monthly salary of USD 25,000 for the period between 1 May 2018 until 30 November 2018 and a monthly salary of USD 30,000 for the period between 1 December 2018 until 30 November 2020.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the DRC took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 February 2018. Consequently, the DRC concluded that 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 members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2019), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment–related dispute with an international dimension between a Chinese club, a Filipino player and a Thai club.

3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition October 2019) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 16 February 2018, the January 2018 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the members of the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC 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.

5. In particular, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2018, and that on 3 February 2018, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the intervening party signed a loan agreement for the temporary transfer of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant from the former to the latter valid as from 4 February 2018 until 30 November 2018.

6. In continuation, the DRC duly noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not enter into an employment contract with the intervening party at that time.

7. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that according to art. 10 of the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had an obligation to accept the temporary transfer it had agreed with the intervening party in view of the fact that the conditions of said clause had been met, and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s refusal led the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to rightfully terminate the contract and claim compensation accordingly, in line with the provisions set out in this regard in the contract.

8. The Chamber also acknowledged the position of the intervening party, and in particular that it asserted that it entered into an employment contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant only after his contract was unilaterally terminated by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and that in this respect it could not and did not induce the termination.

9. The foregoing having been said, the Chamber pointed out that the underlying issue in the present dispute was to establish whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the employment contract.

10. In this context, the DRC first noted that according to art. 10 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent may loan the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to another club if the transaction foresees that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would receive at least 70% of the salary he is entitled to under the terms of the contract. What is more, said clause stipulates that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant “shall unconditionally agree to the transfer of loan” and refusal to do so would give the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the right to terminate the contract with just cause and claim compensation from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant which shall correspond to “the total amount of transfer fee, agent fee, legal fee” the Claimant / Counter-Respondent paid in relation to the transfer of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 20 January 2015, as well as the full value of the contract.

11. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the intervening party had agreed to the temporary transfer of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 3 February 2018, and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was informed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that he would receive a monthly salary of USD 30,000 from the intervening party for the duration of the loan, and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would pay an additional fee in order for his salary to reach the 70% threshold in line with art. 10 of the contract.

12. The DRC, however, was keen to highlight that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not countersign this loan agreement.

13. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant neither signed an employment contract with the intervening party in relation to the temporary transfer. What is more, the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant expressed his disapproval as to the temporary transfer and, in particular, at the financial terms that had been presented to him.

14. In any case, the DRC underlined that art. 10 of the contract appeared to be unilateral and to the benefit of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent only, in view of the fact that it could loan the Respondent / Counter-Claimant out without his consent. What is more, under these terms, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant may receive only 70% of the remuneration originally foreseen in the contract, a situation that the Chamber judged highly unfavourable for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.

15. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the potestative character of art. 10 of the contract could not be deemed acceptable and should therefore be considered invalid. In fact, the DRC emphasised that such clause constituted an impediment to the player’s freedom of movement and freedom to provide services, principles that are at the core of the Regulations.

16. Therefore, the Chamber concurred that art. 10 of the contract does not constitute a reason that can be validly invoked by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent nor a legal basis to unilaterally terminate the contract.

17. Consequently, the Chamber determined that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not have just cause to terminate the contract under the auspices of art. 10 of the contract. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause.

18. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.

19. In this respect, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is entitled to receive from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

20. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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 Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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.

21. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that the contract contained provisions with regards to the termination of the contract by the parties. In fact, the DRC remarked that the contract contained clauses regarding the unilateral termination by one of the parties. The Chamber, however, was keen to highlight that these provisions were not reciprocal: whilst art. 10 and art. 11 para. b) of the contract set out a fixed amount of compensation to be paid to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in case of breach of contract and/or termination without just cause from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, art. 11 para. a) merely indicated that a “penalty” of an unspecified amount would be due to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in the opposite scenario. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that there was no valid compensation clause that could be taken into account.

22. Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent, the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant after the early termination occurred. At the time of the termination of the employment contract on 14 February 2018, the contract would have run until 31 December 2018, i.e. for another 10 months. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent until the natural expiry of the contract amounts to USD 1,666,667 and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

23. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that following the early termination of the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had found new employment with the intervening party, in accordance with which he would be remunerated with a monthly salary of USD 25,000 starting as from 1 May 2018 until 30 November 2018, and then a monthly salary of USD 30,000 as from 1 December 2018 until 30 November 2020. Consequently, in line with the constant practice of the DRC and the general obligation of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

24. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided to partially accept the claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, and concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay the amount of USD 1,461,667 to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation.

25. In addition, the DRC established that any further claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.

26. Finally, the Chamber ended its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that the claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Henan FC is rejected.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Javier Patino Lachica is partially accepted.

3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 1,461,667, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.

4. In the event that the amount due to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 3. is not paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

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

6. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.

*****

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 related 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