F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 29 September 2020
Decision of the
DRC Judge
passed on 29 September 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player A
BY:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
PLAYER A, Country A
Represented by xxx
RESPONDENT:
CLUB B, Country B
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 1 January 2019, the Country A player, Player A (hereinafter: “the player” or “the Claimant”)
and the Country B club, Club B FC (hereinafter: “the club” or “the Respondent”) signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid as from 1 January 2019 until 31
December 2020.
2. In accordance with article 2. a) of the contract, the player is entitled to the following
remuneration:
a) Country B Currency xxx (xxx) 290,000,000 “or equivalent USD 20,000” on “January 2019”;
b) xxx 217,500,000 “or equivalent USD 15,000” as monthly salary payable by the last day of
each month;
c) xxx 290,000,000 “or equivalent USD 20,000” on “January 2019 [sic]”.
3. By means of article 2. c) of the contract, “the club may delay the monthly salary payment to the
player to no later than 10 days from the deadline provided [above]”.
4. Pursuant to article 2. d) of the contract, “if the club suspends the salary payment of more than
60 days from the time specified above, then the Contract is declared void/cancelled and therefore
the player is entitled of all the amount of unpaid salary for the whole Contract Period”.
5. According to article 2.3 of the contract, “in the event of force majeure situations (a circumstance
beyond the power of clubs) which cause the competition cannot be held during the period of
the contract, the amount of monthly salary paid by clubs to player are 25% of the contract value
per year divided for 12 months.”
6. In accordance with article 3.8 of the contract, the player was further entitled to, inter alia, USD
100,000 “or xxx 1,450,000,000” Champions bonus.
7. On 11 January 2020, the parties signed an amendment to the employment contract (hereinafter:
“the amendment”) valid as from the date of signature “until the end of the employment contract
period”.
8. As per the amendment, the club committed itself to pay, inter alia, an “additional contract value
of xxx 500,000,000 net for 2020 season” to the player.
9. On the 27 March 2020, the Football Association of Country B (Football Association of Country B) issued
a document entitled “Decree Letter”.
10. The preamble of the Decree Letter (hereinafter: “the decree”) provided, inter alia, the following:
“With regards to: 1. Input and advice from [Football Association of Country B] Executive
Committee; 2. Input and advice from Country B Liga ; 3. Input and advice from Clubs participating
in LIGA 1 and LIGA 2 Season 2020.”
11. As per the first clause of the decree, the Football Association of Country B declared a status of
“Disaster Emergency” for the months of March, April, May and June 2020 due to the COVID-19
outbreak in Country B, “therefore this Status is classified as Force Majeure”.
12. In accordance with the second clause of the decree, “the Clubs […] may amend working
contracts which have been signed / agreed between the Clubs and the Players, […] on salary
payment obligations in March, April, May, June 2020 which shall be paid maximum 25% of the
obligation as stated in the working contracts”.
13. On 15 April 2020, the player wrote a letter to the club, referring to the Statement Letter, noting
that “even without having signed the letter, you have already deducted 75% of [the player’s]
salary by paying him xxx 65,500,000 on 30 March 2020 (which is USD 4,030) instead of xxx
262,000,000. This, even though your club played during most part of March […] Therefore, we
do not accept the reduction of [the player’s] salary for March 2020 and kindly as you to pay the
remaining outstanding amount within the next 10 days. Also, please note that in the original
employment contract, the salary payments were fixed towards the USD and that in accordance
with the original employment contract and addendum [the player] was supposed to receive a
monthly salary of USD 18,000. Please kindly use the appropriate exchange rate if you insist on
paying the player in xxx.”
14. In said letter, the player further made the following payment proposal to the club:
- 60% of his salaries during the months of April and May 2020 will continue to be paid in the
amount of 157,200,000 each;
- 15% of the salary for April and May 2020 will be deferred and paid to him on 30 July 2020
(2*39,300,000=78,600,000);
- 25% of the salary for April and May 2020 will be waived by him (2*65,500,000=131,000,000).
15. On 17 April 2020, the club wrote a letter to the player and made reference to the decree issued
by the Football Association of Country B. In this context, the club firstly held that, during the
“Force Majeure” period, “the payment from club sponsors (which generate 60%-70% of club’s
main income) is not paid in full amount”. Furthermore, as per the club, “other source of income
including match day ticketing (which usually contribute 15%-20%) and merchandise sales (which
usually make 15%), are also immensely decreasing to near zero. Looking at the range of annual
salary for foreign players in Country B, which is from USD 50,000 to USD 120,000 a year […], in
our opinion with [the player’s] annual salary of […] approximately USD 88.000 after the 25%
calculation, is still in good range of average annual salary for foreign players working in Country
B.” Finally, with regard to the currency exchange, the club held that “the salary payment in xxx
with locked/fixed currency rate was agreed on signing of employment contract […]. When the
USD rate is lower than agreed, the club still pay the same amount in xxx as in the contract.”
16. On 30 April 2020, the player informed the club in writing that “the decision of the [Football
Association of Country B] appears to have been made while only discussing with the League and
clubs and not with the players’ union […], which is in violation of the international guidelines”.
17. In said letter, the player reiterated that he did not accept the 75% salary reduction, requesting
the payment of the outstanding amount within 7 days.
18. In this regard, the player offered, “to reduce the April, May and June salary with 25% and to
defer another 15% of the April, May and June salary to the month of September 2020”.
19. In this context, the player held that his “teammates have been paid the salary for April 2020
[…] yet [the player] has not received his salary yet and [requested the club] to make the relevant
payment”.
20. In addition, the player requested the amount of USD 27,600 “as a bonus for winning the
championship in 2019” to be paid also within 7 days.
21. On 17 May 2020, the club informed the player in writing that since the club “is a member of
[Football Association of Country B, it is] obliged to obey decisions made by [Football Association
of Country B]. This include the declaration of force majeure status starting from March 2020. We
believe [Football Association of Country B] have done communication with [the players’ union].”
22. As per the club, “regarding [the player’s] proposal of full payment for March 2020, 25%
reduction and 15% deferred payment for April to June 2020, we cannot accept this proposal
and will refer to our mutually agreed and consented contract between the club and player”.
23. In said letter, the club subsequently referred to article 2.3 of the contract and held that this “is
the relevant clause for “payment 25% during Force Majeure”, as mutually agreed by the Parties”.
24. On 22 May 2020, the player put the club in default reiterating that the club’s decision to deduct
the March 2020 salary “cannot be accepted”. As per the player, “in case there was financial
damage during March, the club is kindly requested to provide relevant proof”. In continuation,
the player noted that “not even the 25% of April has been paid”, nor “part of the bonus for
winning the championship in 2019”, providing the club 10 days to do so.
25. Finally, the player reiterated that the payments are fixed to USD and asked the club “to comply
with this prerequisite”.
26. On 1 June 2020, the club confirmed that it will pay 25% of the player’s monthly salaries “within
5 days after 8 June when the offices reopen post lockdown”.
27. On 11 June 2020, the club informed the player in writing that “regarding the salary in March
2020, we would like to reiterate that it is the decision from [Football Association of Country B]
which [the club] is a member of, that declared the force majeure status is started in March 2020”.
Furthermore, as per the club, “payment will still using xxx, because it is stated in the contract that
Player’s salary will be amounted in USD or its equivalent in xxx. Since this is stated in the Contract
that we are using xxx, and it is in accordance to the Country B Regulations that all contract for
employees in Country B must use xxx currency.”
28. On 1 July 2020, the player lodged the present claim against the club for outstanding
remuneration in the amount of USD 86,640 plus 5% interest as from the relevant payment dates
until the date of effective payment, specified as follows:
- USD 27,600 net “as a bonus for winning the championship in 2019” + 5% interest as from
1 January 2020;
- USD 13,680 net as partial salary for March 2020 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2020 (cf.
point 47 below);
- USD 13,680 net as partial salary for April 2020 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2020;
- USD 13,680 net as partial salary for May 2020 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020
- USD 18,000 net as full salary for June 2020 + 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2020.
29. The player further requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the club in line with art.
12bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
30. In support of his claim, the player firstly stated that “the Club refused to provide the Player with
a copy of his employment contract. This is a clear act of bad faith and complicated the Player’s
efforts to defend his legal rights”.
31. Furthermore, the player held that the decree “was issued after consultations with the clubs and
the League in Country B, however without consulting with the players’ union”. According to the
player, not involving the players’ union “directly contravenes the recommendations of FIFA”. As
per the player, “if the players’ union would have been invited, they would have objected to a
reduction of salaries of 75%, which is clearly a disproportionate number”.
32. Therefore, the player concluded that the decree issued by the Football Association of Country
B cannot be applied, since the 75% reduction of the salaries “was not based on any national
labour law and the players’ union did also not agree with the reduction of the salary”.
33. Subsequently, the player stated that the club wanted him to accept a wage deduction of 75%
by means of the “Statement Letter”, which he did not sign.
34. As per the player, his March 2020 salary was already reduced from xxx 262,000,000 to xxx
65,500,000, “which showed that the Club had in fact no intention whatsoever to in good faith
find an agreement with the Player”.
35. The player then maintained that he proposed a “partial reduction and deferral of 40% of his
salaries” showing that he “understood that he had to be lenient with the Club, but at the same
time [pointing] out that a 75% reduction of his salaries would be excessive”.
36. Having said this, the player underlined that the club, by means if its correspondences dated 17
April 2020, 17 May 2020, 1 June 2020 and 11 June 2020, disregarded his proposal.
37. With regards to the club’s arguments that COVID is a “force majeure” situation, the player
referred to the FIFA COVID guidelines, and highlighted that “it is clear that FIFA acknowledges
that it did not declare a situation of force majeure in Country B – or in general – in relation to employment contract. Thus, contrary to the much cited statement of the Club, the employment
contract was not impacted by the decision of FIFA. The same ratio must apply to the [Football
Association of Country B] which has no competence to declare such a situation either; indeed
only a court or arbitration tribunal can make an assessment whether or not a situation of force
majeure existed”.
38. Thus, as per the player, “the Club can neither rely on the decision of FIFA nor on the decision of
the [Football Association of Country B] to justify the reduction of salaries or to justify invoking a
situation of force majeure”.
39. In continuation, the player again referred to the FIFA Guidelines and maintained that a unilateral
decision to vary the terms of the contract “would only be possible if: clubs and employees cannot
reach an agreement and national law does not address the situation or collective agreements
with a players’ union are not an option or not applicable”.
40. As per the player, given that the club never sought to find an amicable solution, it was in no
position to unilaterally vary the terms of the contract.
41. With regard to the request for outstanding remuneration, the player submitted that the March
2020 salary could not be reduced, because “the competition was for the most part executed as
intended. It is therefore curious […] why the Club […] would have been (financially) harmed in
any way”. In this context, the player held that the competition continued until 15 March 2020,
followed by an international break, and that the league would have only resumed on 2 June
2020.
42. Therefore, the player determined that since only xxx 65,500,000 was paid to him on 30 March
2020, “and the full salary is xxx 262,000,000 (equivalent to USD 18,000), [he] is still owed xxx
196.500 (equivalent to USD 13,680)”.
43. Regarding the April and May 2020 salaries, the player firstly explained that he has only received
25% for each month. Subsequently, the player referred to article 2.3 of the contract and stated
that said clause is neither reciprocal nor proportionate. Thus, the player submitted that “the total
remaining value of each salary shall be paid in full or – in the alternative – that a proportionate
reduction of the salaries of May and June is applied at the discretion of FIFA”.
44. Moreover, with respect to the June 2020 salary, the player held that the club has not paid him
any amount at all.
45. Furthermore, the player held that, notwithstanding his default letters, the club failed to pay him
the bonus money in the amount of USD 27,600 for winning the 2019 championship and provided
screenshots showing the 2019 league standings, with the club in 1st place.
46. Finally, as regards the currency of payment, the player highlighted that “it is clear from the
employment contract that it was the intention of the parties that the Player would never receive
less than the amount in USD”.
47. In its reply, the club first admitted that “In December 2019, our club won the Season 2019
Champions title of the Country B Liga 1” and that a bonus of xxx 1’450’000’000 based on clause
3.8. of the contract was payable to the players. From this amount, the club acknowledges a debt
towards the player in the amount of xxx 200,000,000 (corresponding to approx. USD 13,492.9
in September 2020. The club provided a copy of a document titled “funds transfer”, according
to which the amount of xxx 1,212,000,000 was transferred to the player on 23 December
2019, corresponding to approx. USD 86,768.2 on that date. Since the contract does not indicate
a due date for the payment, the club deems that no interest should be granted over that amount.
48. The club further stated that “On 28 January 2020, the National Disaster Management Agency
of the Republic of Country B issued a decree that determined an emergency disaster status due
to corona virus in Country B from 28 January 2020 to 28 February 2020”. On 29 February 2020,
the National Disaster Management Agency issued a further decree, by means of which the
emergency disaster status due to the corona virus in Country B, determined by the decree Nr x
was extended until 29 May 2020 […]”. Moreover, “On 27 March 2020, the Country B
Football Federation (Football Association of Country B) issued a decree according to which, based
on the decree Nr xx of the National Disaster Management Agency dated 29 February 2020, the
Country B Championship was interrupted immediately and until 29 May 2020 at least due to
Covid-19. Moreover, the decree stated that the situation shall be considered as a force majeure
since March 2020”.
49. The club explained, “the Country B football has also been hit hard by Covid-19. The current
season 2020 has been interrupted in March 2020, and it will not be resumed before October
2020. Moreover, when the league resumes, spectators will not be admitted to the matches in
the stadium. Those facts allow no other interpretation than estimating that Covid-19 is a force
majeure event in Country B and in particular for Country B football. Therefore, the abovementioned
contractual clause 2.2.3. comes to application”.
50. In view of the foregoing and based on clause 2.3 of the contract, which was mutually agreed by
the parties, the club claimed that as from March 2020 the player’s salary was reduced to 25%
and consequently the club states to have paid him for March to July 2020 a monthly salary of
xxx 65,500,000, which is 25% of his monthly salary of xxx 262,000,000. In particular for the
months of June and July 2020, the club provided a copy of an email from Email Address xx to
Email Address xx indicating the alleged transfer of the amount xxx 65,500,000 twice on 13 July
2020 to an unknown bank account.
51. The club also stated that on 2 April 2020 all players were authorized to return to their home
countries. However, on 14 July 2020 they players were informed that they had to return to City
Country B on 26 July 2020 to undergo health tests and resume training, which the player
allegedly failed to do. Thus, on 4 August 2020 the club urged the player to return until 10 August
2020 at the latest, which he also apparently did not do.
52. “Finally, considering that the Player has not returned to Ciry Country B in spite of our letter
dated 14 July 2020 and the reminder dated 4 August 2020, we hereby reserve our right to take
further legal actions against him, in particular for a potential breach of contract”.
53. In view of the above, the club concluded that in view of these considerations, the Claimant’s
claim should be reduced to xxx 200,000,000, any further claim be rejected and the costs of the
procedure be borne by the Claimant
54. For the sake of completeness, the player was requested to comment on the payments allegedly
made by the club. In this respect, the player stated the following:
“With reference to the employment contract signed between Player A and Club B FC, and despite
de return of Player A to the club, as requested, fulfilling all his contractual obligations, we have
noted that for the month of August, 2020, only 50 % of the salary has been paid. So, we kindly
inform you, once more, that Mr. Player A does not accept the unilateral reduction of his salary,
in these terms. For this reason, with the present letter we're notifying the club to pay the
remaining 50% of the salary within the next 10 days. Player A reserves his right to also claim the
remaining part of the August 2020 salary at FIFA”.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) Judge (hereinafter also referred to as “the
DRC Judge”) analyzed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
he took note that the player’s claim was lodged on 1 July 2020. Taking into account the wording
of art.21 of the June 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2. Subsequently, the DRC judge 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 August 2020) he is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a Country A player and a Country B club.
3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analyzed 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 August 2020), and considering that
the present claim was lodged on 1 July 2020, the June 2020 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. Subsequently, the DRC judge continued by
acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in
relation to the substance of the matter. However, the DRC judge emphasized that in the
following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5. To start with, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed the
contract valid from 1 January 2019 until 31 December 2020 and the amendment. The DRC Judge
pointed out that the present claim was related only to outstanding remuneration.
6. The DRC Judge took note, on the one hand, that the player claims that the club failed to pay
him part of his salaries, i.e. 75% of his salaries for March, April and May 2020 and his full salary
for June 2020. Moreover, the DRC Judge noted that the player requested part of a bonus.
7. On the other hand, the DRC Judge noted that the club claimed to have been entitled to reduce
the player´s salary to 25% of it, based on the contract, the force majeure situation declared in
Country B and the decree issued by the Football Association of Country B. Moreover, the DRC
Judge noted that the club acknowledged owing to the player part of the bonus.
8. At this stage, the DRC Judge took note that on 27 March 2020 the Football Association of
Country B issued the decree declaring status of “Disaster Emergency” for the period from March
until June 2020. The DRC Judge further noted that at the end of March 2020 the club paid only
25% of the player’s salary and that on 17 April 2020, the club informed the player in writing the
reduction of his salary to 25% due to financial hardship during the force majeure period declared
by the Football Association of Country B.
9. In this respect, and prior to further address the issue of the unilateral alteration of the player’s
salary for the period between March and June 2020, the DRC Judge held that, in any case, a
salary variation could not be applied retroactively. In this respect, the DRC judge underlined that
the decree was issued on 27 March 2020 and that the club only on 17 April 2020 informed the
player about the salary reduction. Consequently, the DRC Judge was of the opinion that the
principle of non-retroactivity should be applied as of the date of the communication of the
reduction to the player.
10. Therefore, the DRC Judge held that the salary of March 2020 cannot be subject to a possible
reduction and hence the Respondent should pay it in full to the Claimant.
11. At this stage, the DRC Judge turned his attention to the fact that the contract was not entirely
clear as to the currency in which the remuneration should be paid. The DRC Judge pointed out
that the wording of the contract sometimes referred to an equivalent amount in local currency
and other times to an amount in USD.
12. In view of the lack of clarity of the wording of the contract, the DRC Judge analyzed the
statements of the parties and noted that the player acknowledged that the club paid his
remuneration in local currency (Currency xxx). The DRC Judge further noted that the club did not
contest the player´s statement.
13. As a result, the DRC Judge determined that any outstanding remuneration should be paid by
the Respondent to the Claimant in Currency xxx, i.e. the local currency.
14. In continuation, the DRC Judge calculated the outstanding part of the salary of March 2020,
which the Claimant is entitled to receive. In this respect, the DRC Judge took note that the player
acknowledged being entitled to a total amount of xxx 262,000,000 and that taking into account
that the club already paid 25% of it (i.e. xxx 65,500,000) to the player, an amount of xxx
196,500,000 is still outstanding.
15. Therefore, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent should pay to the Claimant an amount
of xxx 196,500,000 as outstanding part of the salary of March 2020.
16. In addition, taking into account the Claimant´s claim as well as the DRC longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, it was decided to award the Claimant an interest at a rate of 5%
p.a. as of the respective due date, i.e. 1 April 2020 until the date of effective payment.
17. The foregoing being established, the DRC Judge went on to examine the Respondent’s
arguments in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the club’s income and the
player´s remuneration.
18. In this regard, the DRC Judge wished to refer to the fact that, in light of the worldwide COVID-
19 outbreak, FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing
appropriate guidance and recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to
both mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response
is harmonized in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA issued an additional
document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarification about the most
relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak
and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.
19. In this respect, the DRC Judge underlined that, according to the COVID-19 Guidelines, clubs and
employees (players and coaches) are strongly encouraged to work together to find appropriate
collective agreements on a club or league basis regarding employment conditions for any period
where the competition is suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
20. Equally, the DRC Judge recalled that, as per the said document, where clubs and employees
cannot reach an agreement, a unilateral variation of the terms of a contract may only be possible
if the applicable national law permits it or in case it is envisaged by an existing collective
(bargaining) agreement signed between clubs and players representatives. If the applicable
national law does not address the situation or collective agreements with a players’ union are
not an option or not applicable, unilateral decisions to vary terms and conditions of contracts will
only be recognized by FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) or Players’ Status Committee
(PSC) where they were made in good faith, are reasonable and proportionate.
21. With this line of principles in mind, the DRC Judge analyzed in detail the contract concluded
between the parties. In particular, the DRC judge took note of article 2.3 of the contract which provides, “in the event of force majeure situations (a circumstance beyond the power of clubs)
which cause the competition cannot be held during the period of the contract, the amount of
monthly salary paid by clubs to player are 25% of the contract value per year divided for 12
months.”
22. In this regard, the DRC Judge held that the parties mutually agreed in the contract on a salary
equivalent to 25% “of the contract value per year divided for 12 months” in case of force
majeure.
23. Therefore, the DRC Judge concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic triggered the application of
article 2.3 of the contract to the employment relationship between the Claimant and the
Respondent.
24. As a result, the DRC Judge decided that the Claimant should receive 25% of his salary for the
months of April, May and June 2020.
25. In this respect, the DRC Judge underlined that it is uncontested by the parties that the
Respondent already paid 25% of the player´s salary for the month of April and May 2020.
Therefore, DRC Judge concluded that the Respondent fulfilled its contractual obligations towards
the Claimant regarding said months.
26. With regard to the salary of June 2020, the DRC Judge noted that during the investigation of
the matter at stake, the Respondent provided FIFA with a copy of an email from Email address
xx to Email Address xx, indicating the alleged transfer of the amount xxx 65,500,000 twice on 13
July 2020 to an unknown bank account.
27. What is more, the DRC Judge underlined that the Claimant was requested to present his position
regarding the payments allegedly made by the Respondent. In this regard, the DRC Judge
highlighted that the Claimant informed FIFA (cf. point I.54 above) that only half of the salary of
August 2020 remained outstanding by the club.
28. Based on the foregoing, the DRC Judge concluded that the Claimant already received his salary
related to the month of June 2020 from the Respondent (cf. article 2.3 of the contract).
29. Finally, the DRC Judge focused his attention to the Claimant´s request for bonus for winning the
championship in 2019.
30. In this context, the DRC Judge took note that article 3.8 of the contract clearly established that
the Claimant would be entitled to receive a bonus amounting to xxx 1,450,000,000 in case the
club would win the local tournament.
31. In this respect, the DRC Judge noted that the Respondent presented documentary evidence of
having paid on 23 December 2019 an amount of xxx 1,212,000,000 as bonus to the Claimant.
In this respect, the DRC Judge added that the Claimant did not contest having received this
amount.
32. At this stage, the DRC Judge referred to his previous considerations (cf. points II.11-13 above)
and recalled that based on the parties´ statements the remuneration should be paid by the
Respondent to the Claimant in local currency, i.e. Currency xxx.
33. With this in mind, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent should pay to the Claimant the
amount of xxx 238,000,000 as remaining part of bonus for winning the 2019 championship.
34. In addition, taking into account the Claimant´s request and the well-established jurisprudence
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this respect, the DRC judge decided that the club should
pay 5% interest p.a. on the amount of xxx 238,000,000 as from 01 January 2020 until the date
of effective payment.
35. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that the claim
of the player is partially accepted.
36. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the DRC Judge
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.
37. In this regard, the DRC Judge 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.
38. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC Judge decided that, in the event that the club
does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the
player, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details
to the club, 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 club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
39. Finally, the DRC Judge 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.
III. DECISION OF THE DRC JUDGE
1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
Emilio García Silvero
- Country B Currency xxx 238,000,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 1 January 2020 until the date of effective payment;
- xxx 196,500,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2020 until
the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA
languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the
Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details
to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. 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. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
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) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, 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 Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland www.fifa.com |
legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777