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 10 December 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 December 2020,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Lluis Sastre Reus

COMPOSITION:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman

Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member

Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member

CLAIMANT:

LLUIS SASTRE REUS, Spain

Represented by Mr. Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez

RESPONDENT:

AEK LACARNA FC, Cyprus

Represented by I. Frangos & Associates LLC

I.

I. FACTS OF THE CASEFACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 11 January 2019, the Spanish player, Lluis Sastre Reus (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) and the Cypriot club, AEK Larnaca FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the contract).

2. As per clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the contract, it was valid as from the date of its signature until 30 June 2020. The contract would be “automatically renewed for another football season and specifically for the period 01/07/2020 – 30/06/2021 if the player participates in 25 official games (not friendlies) or more, with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game during the season 2019-2020”.

3. Clause 1.4 of the contract provides the player’s gross remuneration throughout the duration of the contract, as follows:

 From 15 February 2019 until 15 June 2019, EUR 17,430 which corresponds to EUR 15,000 net to be paid in 5 monthly gross salaries of EUR 3,486 gross or EUR 3,000 net;

 From 15 September 2019 until 15 June 2020, EUR 41,310 which corresponds to EUR 35,000 net, to be paid in 10 monthly gross salaries of EUR 4,131 gross or EUR 3,500 net;

 In case the employment contract is automatically renewed, from 15 September 2020 until 15 June 2021, EUR 47,770 gross which corresponds to EUR 40,000 net, to be paid in 10 monthly gross salaries of EUR 4,777 gross or EUR 4,000 net.

4. Clause 13 of the contract reads as follows: “Dispute Resolution: any employment dispute between the club and the player shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be resolved according to the applicable regulations of the CFA”.

5. On 12 January 2019, the parties concluded a supplementary agreement under the title of “Agreement for the purchase of image rights” (hereinafter: the IR agreement), the validity of which ran as for the same period as the contract. Furthermore, the IR agreement states that it “shall be an additional and inextricable part of [the contract]”.

6. Clause 6 of the IR agreement stipulates that it shall terminate automatically: a.) after its expiry on the 30 June 2020 or if it is automatically renewed according to term 1.2 of the contract, then on 30 June 2021; b.) by mutual consent of the parties; c.) upon the termination of the contract.

7. Exhibit 1 of the IR agreement provides the player’s remuneration, as follows:

For the period as from 11 January 2019 until 31 May 2019: EUR 48,750 net

 5 monthly instalments of EUR 9,000 each, payable at the end of each month, starting on 31 January 2019;

 5 monthly instalments of EUR 750 each for accommodation, car and flight tickets, payable at the end of each month, starting on 31 January 2019;

 EUR 5,000 if the player participates in more than 10 official games (not friendlies) during the season 2018/2019 with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game and the club qualifies for European football competitions;

 EUR 500 for every goal the player scores in official games in any competition (not friendlies) during the season 2018/2019.

For the period as from 1 June 2019 until 31 May 2020: EUR 102,500 net

 10 monthly instalments of EUR 9,500 each, payable at the end of each month, starting on 31 August 2019;

 10 monthly instalments of EUR 750 each for accommodation, car and flight tickets, payable at the end of each month, starting on 31 August 2019;

 EUR 5,000 if the player participates in more than 15 official games (not friendlies) during the season 2019/2020 with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game.

 EUR 5,000 if the player participates in more than 25 official games (not friendlies) during the season 2019/2020 with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game.

 EUR 5,000 if the player participates in more than 35 official games (not friendlies) during the season 2019/2020 with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game.

 EUR 5,000 if the club qualifies for European football competitions for the season 2020/2021 and the player participates in more than 25 official games (not friendlies) during the season 2019/2020 with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game;

 EUR 500 for every goal the player scores in official games in any competition (not friendlies) during the season 2018/2019.

For the period as from 1 July 2020 until 30 June 2021: EUR 97,500 net

 10 monthly instalments of EUR 9,000 each, payable at the end of each month, starting on 31 August 2020;

 10 monthly instalments of EUR 750 each for accommodation, car and flight tickets, payable at the end of each month, starting on 31 August 2020;

 EUR 5,000 if the player participates in more than 15 official games (not friendlies) during the season 2020/2021 with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game.

 EUR 5,000 if the player participates in more than 25 official games (not friendlies) during the season 2020/2021 with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game.

 EUR 5,000 if the player participates in more than 35 official games (not friendlies) during the season 2020/2021 with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game.

 EUR 5,000 if the club qualifies for European football competitions for the season 2021/2022 and the player participates in more than 25 official games (not friendlies) during the season 2019/2020 with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game;

 EUR 500 for every goal the player scores in official games in any competition (not friendlies) during the season 2020/2021.

8. On 13 March 2020, the Cyprus FA announced the suspension of all its events due to the Covid-19 outbreak.

9. On 29 April 2020, the Respondent issued a salary reduction proposal (hereinafter: the proposal) due to Covid-19 pandemic which was addressed to the players of the team. Said proposal was signed by the Respondent and the Claimant and, thereunder, the parties agreed on the following conditions:

a. A 10% reduction from the total remuneration as per the employment contract, image rights and any other agreements concluded for the season 2019/2020;

b. All bonuses as stated in the individual contracts concluded with the players for the season 2019/2020 would not be payable;

c. Any and all contracts expiring by 31 May 2020 or 30 June 2020 would be extended until the Championship in Cyprus is finalised and no later than 20 July 2020, at no extra cost for the club;

d. All monthly allowances would be paid;

e. In case the club achieves European participation for the season 2020/2021, a minimum of 5% from the 10% reduction sated above would be reimbursed to the players.

10. Moreover, the proposal stipulated that: “The above are all subject to the Cyprus league recommencing and being finalised. In case the Cyprus League does not recommence then the club is only obligated to pay the players the remaining salary of March 2020 and allowances”.

11. On 15 May 2020, the Cyprus FA decided to immediately terminate the year’s football tournament 2019/2020 of the CYTA A Division Championship and the Coca Cola Cup 2019/2020 A and B Category, i.e. the league prematurely ended on 15 May 2020, eight rounds before the originally scheduled completion.

12. Until the suspension of the season 2019/2020, the player participated in 24 official games within the Respondent.

13. By means of his correspondence dated 28 May 2020, the player informed the club that clause 1.2 of the contract had been triggered and the contract had been automatically renewed for another football season, for the period as from 1 July 2020 until 30 June 2021.

14. On 29 May 2020, the club replied thereto, denying that the contract had been automatically renewed in view of the fact that the player had only participated in 24 official games during the season 2019/2020.

15. By means of his letter dated 15 June 2020, sent to the club on 18 June 2020, the player did not accept the rejection of the club as to the automatic renewal of the contract. In particular, the player held, inter alia, that when the parties concluded the contract, the situation created by the Covid-19 outbreak was not foreseeable and that the contract does not provide anything as to the consequences of an early termination of the season. In this context, the Claimant argued that, since the season ended prematurely, the requirements set in clause 1.2 of the contract cannot be applied “in the same manner as if the contract was fully performed, because it would not comply with the mutual intention of the parties and the general principle of good faith”.

16. According to the information available in TMS, the player and the Indian club, Hydebarad FC, executed an employment contract on 29 July 2020, valid as from 1 September 2020 until 31 May 2021. Pursuant to such agreement, the player is entitled to a total remuneration of INR 8,976,000.

II.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFAPROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA

17. 24 July 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a.

a. The claim of The claim of the Claimantthe Claimant

18. In his request for relief, the player requested to be awarded outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 137,500 –corresponding to the residual value of the contract–, plus 5% p.a. as from 1 July 2020, i.e. the date win which the contract was allegedly terminated, until the date of effective payment, broken down by the Claimant as follows:

 EUR 40,000 net corresponding to the residual value of the contract, i.e. the total net remuneration for the period as from 15 September 2020 until 15 June 2021;

 EUR 97,500 net corresponding to the residual value of the IR agreement, i.e. the total net remuneration for the period as from 1 July 2020 until 30 June 2021.

19. In addition, the Claimant requested the Respondent be ordered to:

 Provide the Claimant with “the relevant tax certificates attesting the payment of the relevant taxes to the competent tax authorities in Cyprus in relation to the compensation payable to the player with regards to the unilateral premature termination of the contract without just cause”;

 “Assume the entirety of the FIFA DRC administration and procedural fees, if any”.

20. In his claim, the Claimant firstly held that, upon the Covid-19 outbreak, that generated unforeseeable circumstances, the Respondent was willing to find an amicable solution concerning the reduction of the salary of the player, but remained indifferent about the formalistic application of the automatic extension of the contract. In this regard, the Claimant argued that he had participated in 24 official games, when still eight rounds of the championship were to be played before the Cypriot FA decided to prematurely end the season 2019/2020. The player argued that, should the season 2019/2020 have continued as originally scheduled, the player would have reached the 25 games played and the contract would have been automatically extended.

21. In this context, the Claimant held that, when refusing to extend the contract for the season 2020/2021, the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause and, therefore, it shall be condemned to pay compensation to the Claimant.

22. Moreover, the Claimant stressed that “under these circumstances the player should not be responsible for not formally satisfying the special condition established at the Article 1.2 of the contract, as it would not comply with the principle of good faith. Contrary, whereas the contract contains a gap in relation to the performance in the event of unforeseeable circumstances, it shall be filled in accordance with the Article 2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, reducing the required number of the games to be played by the player in order to renew the contract automatically on the pro rata basis with regards to the total games of AEK LARNAKA (not) played”. In this context, the Claimant concluded that: “As a result, playing in the official 24 games in the rooster of AEK LARNAKA shall be considered sufficient satisfaction of the special requirement established at the article 1.2 of the Contract, thus triggering the automatic renewal of the contract for the next season until 30/06/2021”.

23. As regards to the competence of FIFA to hear about the dispute arising from the interpretation and execution of the IR agreement, the Claimant held that both the contract and the IR agreement shall be jointly considered when determining the compensation payable by the club to the player, insofar the IR agreement expressly stipulates that it “shall be an additional and inextricable part of [the contract]”.

24. Thus, the Claimant is requesting compensation for breach of contract concerning both, the contract and the IR agreements, for the residual value of both agreements, upon the alleged termination without just cause made by the Respondent for not automatically extending the contract

b.

b. Position of the Position of the RespondentRespondent

25. The Respondent objected to the competence of FIFA and argued that the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Cyprus FA (hereinafter: Cypriot NDRC) is competent in accordance with the contract. The Respondent argues that such body is compliant with the necessary requirements under the FIFA rules.

26. As to the substance, the Respondent rejected the player’s claim and argued that on 13 March 2020 the local government suspended sports activities, following which the Cyprus FA suspended the local league between 30 March and the end of April.

27. The club went on to explain that it was able to reach an agreement with the player on 30 April 2020.

28. The club further explained that the on 15 May 2020 the local league was ultimately cancelled.

29. Moving on to the legal arguments of the Respondent, it argued as follows:

a. The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an event of force majeure as per the CAS case law, namely CAS 3463 & 3463;

b. The player acted in bad faith;

c. The contract should be interpreted in a pro-rata basis;

d. The contractual gap arising from the unforeseen circumstance of the pandemic must be filled by the deciding body;

e. The unilateral extension of the contract could have been detrimental or beneficial to the parties, but in any event it cannot be determined whether the player would have been fielded or not in the 8 remaining games left of the season, which were later cancelled.

30. The Respondent requested that the claim is deemed inadmissible or, in the alternative, rejected.

c.

c. RejoinderRejoinder of the of the ClaimantClaimant

31. The player reiterated his argumentation and submitted FIFA is competent to hear the dispute on account of the fact that the NDRC of Cyprus does not fulfil the Principle of equal representation. To this end, the player referred to Cases Aikel, Faherty, Goncalves, and Grandin and argued that “Even if the Cyprus NDRC tried to modify its regulations, these “amendments” were a mere intent to continue “controlling and monitoring” the Cyprus NDRC while creating an illusion of fulfilling the FIFA requirements. Accordingly, it responds to a simple strategy to masquerade the reality, which shall not be accepted at any costs.

32. As to the substance, the player rebutted the club’s argumentation and argued that only the COVID outbreak could be considered as an event of force majeure, but not the subsequent decisions by the CFA board to cancel/suspend the league. In any event, the player underlined that neither the COVID-19 outbreak nor the cancellation of the league could be attributed to him.

33. Additionally, the player argued that the bad faith of the Respondent is not compatible with the principle of contractual stability and the FIFA COVID Guidelines. To this end, the player explained that in spite of having accepted the proposal by the club to reduce his remuneration, “another reduction proposal in the event that the championship would have been permanently suspended” was nothing else but a request to release the Respondent from paying any remuneration the Player starting from the month of April 2020 in case the season 2019/2020 of the CYTA A 'Division Championship was not renewed after the temporal suspension on the 13th of March 2020”. The player furthermore argued that he only agreed to reduce his salary “because he assumed that the automatic extension in accordance with article 1.2 of the employment contract” was triggered.

34. In continuation, the player reiterated that the contract shall be considered as automatically extended between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021. In this respect, the player rejected the argumentation put forward by the club regarding the literal interpretation of clause 1.2 of the contract, since “it does not comply with the rules governing the interpretation of the contracts”,

d.

d. Final comments by the RespondentFinal comments by the Respondent

35. The club pointed out that the player is reiterating his position as outlined in his statement of claim, hence it rejected the player’s position.

36. The club furthermore pointed out that the player continues to seek relief as if he had not found any new employment agreement, but outlined that the player has entered into an agreement with club Hydebarad FC.

37. The club reiterated its request for relief.

III.

III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBERDISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

a.

a. CompetencCompetence e

38. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 24 July 2020 and submitted for decision on 10 December 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the October 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.

39. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October ), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Spanish player and a Cypriot club.

b.

b. AdmissibilityAdmissibility

i.

i. The Cypriot NDRCThe Cypriot NDRC

40. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of the jurisdiction clause inserted in the contract.

41. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant insisted on the competence of the FIFA DRC to adjudicate on the claim lodged by him against the Respondent.

42. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the October 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it 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.

43. 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 members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.

44. 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”.

45. On account of the above, and before examining the documentation presented by the Respondent, the DRC noted that in previous occasions, the DRC has repeatedly determined that the Cypriot NDRC does not meet the requirements of FIFA Circular 1010 and the FIFA Standard NDRC Regulations, particularly due to the fact that the Cyprus FA appears to have influence on the players’ appointment of member as opposed to club members.

46. From the regulations submitted by the club, as well as the argumentation submitted by the parties, it follows that in accordance with article 22.4.4 of the “Regulations for the Registration and Transfer of Football Players and the DRC Procedural Regulations (2019)”, the two members which are elected by the Pancyprian Football Players’ Association need to be approved by the Cyprus FA, whereas such condition does not apply to the appointment of club representatives. Moreover, based on article 22.4.5 of the regulations concerned, in case Pancyprian Football Players’ Association refuses or fails to nominate a player representative, the Cyprus FA has also potential influence on the selection process of player representatives, as opposed to club representatives. The DRC further referred to the decision rendered in case 20-00707 and confirmed its assessment in this regard.

47.What is more, the DRC observed that it appears to be costs involved in labour disputes before the Cypriot NDRC, which contravenes the FIFA NDRC Standard Regulations.48.Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Chamber concluded that the Cypriot NDRC does not fully respect the principle of equal representation and hence cannot be considered an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings. Therefore, the Chamber concluded it is competent to deal with the matter at hand and that the claim of the player is admissible.ii.The IR agreement49.In continuation, the DRC observed that the dispute at hand appears to involve an image rights agreement. Accordingly, the DRC wished to emphasize that from the contents of said image rights agreement, the latter was intrinsically connected to the contract.50.Consequently, the DRC confirmed that the IR agreement and the contract shall be deemed as one contractual instrument only, which reflects the employment relation of the parties. It follows that the player’s claim is also admissible in this respect.c.Applicable legal framework51.Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition October 2020, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 July 2020, the June 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.d.Burden of proof52.The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the DRC stressed the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties.53.In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in TMS.e.Merits of the dispute54.The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. 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 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.

i.

i. Main leMain legal discussion and considerationsgal discussion and considerations

55. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the automatic renewal of the contract based on its clause 1.2.

56. The DRC highlighted that it took due note of the parties’ submission regarding the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

57. In this context, the Chamber firstly wished to highlight that 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 harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.

58. The DRC also wished to refer to the fact that said guidelines – as per the explicit wording of FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines – are only applicable to “unilateral variations to existing employment agreements”. Therefore, except where a termination of a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as a result of COVID-19 (in which case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the guidelines), said guidelines do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing employment agreements. The Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes that are presented before the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of a contract, the FIFA Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber shall apply.

59. In this respect, the DRC observed that the dispute does not concern a unilateral variation of a contract followed by the unilateral termination of said contract. Consequently, the DRC clarified that the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and FAQ shall not apply, only the Regulations and the established jurisprudence of the Chamber.

60. In this framework, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine whether the termination of the contract was made with or without just cause, and subsequently, to determine the consequences of such early termination. Hence, the Chamber recalled the specific wording of clause 1.2 of the contract, which established that the contract would be “automatically renewed for another football season and specifically for the period 01/07/2020 – 30/06/2021 if the player participates in 25 official games (not friendlies) or more, with a minimum participation time of 45 minutes per game during the season 2019-2020”.

61. In this respect, the Chamber wished to point out that the decision on the lining-up of a player in a match is normally left fully to the discretion of clubs. As such, players had no influence on the question of whether or not he would be fielded in a specific number of matches in the relevant season.

62. In this context, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, in general, potestative clauses, i.e. clauses that contain obligations which fulfilment are conditional upon an event that one party entirely controls, can in general not be applied, since they limit the rights of the other contractual party in an excessive manner and lead to an unjustified disadvantage of the latter towards the other.

63. Along those lines, the majority of the members of the Chamber agreed that clause 1.2 cannot be taken into consideration due to its potestative nature. Indeed, as previously mentioned, the club totally controlled the fielding of the player and therefore, only the club was in a position to decide whether or not to extend or terminate the contract. The majority of the members of the Chamber referred to the jurisprudence of the DRC in this respect, which has been consistent to rule that clauses such as the one at stake, which leaves a player at the mercy of a club, cannot be upheld.

64. As a result of the foregoing, the Chamber by a majority decision came to the conclusion that it should be deemed that the contract would run until June 2021, and that as a consequence by means of its letter dated 29 May 2020, the club terminated the contract with the player without just cause. The club is thus to bear the consequences that follow.

ii.

ii. ConsequencesConsequences

65. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club.

66. In doing so, the Chamber 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.

67. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

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

69. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract and IR agreement until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 137,500 (i.e. the 2020/2021 season) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

70. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.

71. Indeed, the player found employment with Hydebarad FC. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately INR 8,976,000 in total, which is approximately EUR 102,000. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 102,000.

72. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination did not take place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that the player is not entitled to receive additional compensation.

73. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 35,500 to the player (i.e. EUR 137,500 minus EUR 102,000), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.

74. The Chamber took note of the fact that the player requested to be provided with the relevant tax certificates attesting the payment of the relevant taxes to the competent tax authorities in Cyprus. In this regard, the Chamber noted that such requested lacked regulatory or contractual basis. Accordingly, the Chamber decided to reject this claim by the player.

75. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the player interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim until the date of effective payment.

iii.

iii. Compliance with monetary Compliance with monetary decisionsdecisions

76. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.

77. In this regard, the DRC highlighted 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.

78. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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 communicates the relevant bank details to the club, provided that the decision is final and binding, 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.

79. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned bans 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.

80. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by any of the parties.

f.

f. CostsCosts

81. The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

82. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.

IV.

IV. DECISIONDECISION OF THE OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBERDISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant, LLUIS SASTRE REUS, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent, AEK LARNACA FC, has to pay to the Claimant the following amount:

- EUR 35,500 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 July 2020 until the date of effective payment.

4. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. The decision is rendered free of costs.

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

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