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 Nermin Hodzic

COMPOSITION:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Angela Collins (Australia), member Aby Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member

CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:

NERMIN HODZIC, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Represented by Mr. Ivan Ostojic

RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:

ADANA DEMIRSPOR, Turkey

Represented by Mr. Sezgin Guraslan

INTERVENING PARTY:

FK TUZLA CITY, Bosnia and Herzegovina

I. FACTS

1. On 26 July 2019, the player and Adana Demirspor Kulubu (hereinafter: Adana) signed an employment contract valid as of 1 August 2019 until 31 May 2022.

2. Pursuant to clause 3 of the contract, the player was, inter alia, entitled to the following remuneration:

- 10 monthly instalments of EUR 15,000 each for the 2020/2021 season (“August 2020 – May 2021”);

- 10 monthly instalments of EUR 15,000 each for the 2021/2022 season (“August 2021 – May 2022”).

3. Furthermore, as per clause 3 of the contract, “in case [the club] shall entitle to play in Turkish Super League, Player’s yearly salary shall be EUR 200,000 instead of EUR 150,000”.

4. Finally, in accordance with clause 3 of the contract, “in case [the club] achieves to be in Turkish Super League in any season, the player shall be awarded with extra EUR 50,000 bonus”.

5. On 2 September 2019, Adana and Balikesirspor Kulubu Dernegi (hereinafter: Balikesir) signed a loan agreement (hereinafter: loan agreement), agreeing on the temporary transfer of the player from the former to the latter, for the period as from 2 September 2019 until 31 May 2020.

6. According to clause 3 of the loan agreement, Adana “shall make the payment according to [the contract] dated 26.07.2019 to the player. Balikesirspor shall not make any payment to the player. Balikesir shall pay Adana Demirspor a net of EUR 175,000 for the loan transfer of the player under the following dates:

EUR 17,500 on 20 September 2019;

EUR 17,500 on 21 October 2019;

EUR 17,500 on 20 November 2019;

EUR 17,500 on 22 December 2019;

EUR 17,500 on 21 January 2020;

EUR 17,500 on 18 February 2020;

EUR 17,500 on 20 March 2020;

EUR 17,500 on 20 April 2020;

EUR 17,500 on 21 May 2020;

EUR 17,500 on 20 June 2020.”

7. Moreover, the contract inter alia holds the following clause: “The player renounces his other rights for 2019/2020 season written under Player’s Agreement dated 26.07.2019 with Adana Demirspor Kulubu. The Player also undertakes not to claim any rights other than stipulated in this contract from Adana Demirspor Kulubu arisen or in connection with the Professional Football Player’s Contract dated 26.07.2019”.

8. On 15 April 2020, the DRC rendered its decision in case 19-02234 between the player and Adana, awarding to the player the amount of EUR 40,000.

9. The aforementioned amount corresponded to the outstanding part of the salary for September 2019, as well as the outstanding salaries for October and November 2019.

10. On 3 June 2020, the player put Adana in default, requesting, inter alia, the payment within 15 days of EUR 130,000, corresponding to the following:

- EUR 40,000 as specified in the DRC Decision of 15 April 2020;

- EUR 15,000 corresponding to the December 2019 salary;

- EUR 15,000 corresponding to the January 2020 salary;

- EUR 15,000 corresponding to the February 2020 salary;

- EUR 15,000 corresponding to the March 2020 salary;

- EUR 15,000 corresponding to the April 2020 salary;

- EUR 15,000 corresponding to the May 2020 salary.

11. Moreover, the player requested to be re-- integrated in the team of Adana.

12. On 19 June 2020, the player terminated the contract in writing. In said termination letter, the player held that Adana failed to remedy the default outlined in his letter dated 3 June 2020.

13. On 30 June 2020, the player lodged a claim against the Adana for breach of contract requesting, inter alia, the following:

- EUR 90,000 as outstanding remuneration “which matured as follows:

 EUR 15,000 on 1/1/2020;

 EUR 15,000 on 1/2/2020;

 EUR 15,000 on 1/3/2020;

 EUR 15,000 on 1/4/2020;

 EUR 15,000 on 1/5/2020;

 EUR 15,000 on 1/6/2020”.

- EUR 500,000 as compensation for breach of contract “which amount matured on 19/6/2020”.

14. The player further requested 5% interest p.a. on said amounts as from the respective due dates.

15. Finally, the player requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on Adana.

16. In his claim, the player firstly held that on 25 June 2020, Adana paid him the amount of EUR 41,315 “by referring to the FIFA decision”.

17. As such, according to the player, Adana had only complied with its obligations deriving from the FIFA Decision of 15 April 2020, but not with its other contractual obligations.

18. In this context, the player maintained that he had a just cause to terminate the contract on 19 June 2020.

19. With regard to the requested compensation in the amount of EUR 500,000, the player argued that “the club finds itself in the league position which promises promotion to Turkish Super League”.

20. Thus, the player outlined that the residual value of the contract amounted to EUR 500,000, taking into account a yearly salary of EUR 200,000 for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 seasons, as well as the EUR 50,000 bonus “in case [the club] achieves to be in Turkish Super League in any season”.

21. In its reply, Adana asked for the rejection of the player’s claims. It explains that as per the contract in force between Adana and the player, as well as based on the loan transfer agreement, Balikesir should pay every month an amount of EUR 17,500 to Adana, and Adana consequently should pay every month an amount of EUR 15,000 to the player.

22. However, since Balikesir did not make the contractually agreed payments to Adana, as a result of which Adana could not make the due payments to the player. Further, Adana explained that “the player undertook not to claim any rights from Adana Demirspor” and that “the meaning of this article is Player can claim his rights after the season 2019/2020, because Balikesir must make all payments until 31.05.2020, because of that Adana Demirspor shall make payments until 31.05.2020”.

23. Moreover, Adana explained that on 7 January 2020, it paid an amount of EUR 20,000 to the player, as well as on 25 June 2020 an additional amount of EUR 40,000.

24. What is more, Adana is of the opinion that the player terminated the contract without just cause, as the player terminated the contract on 19 June 2020, whereas his loan contract with Balikesir still continued – as per the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and art. 19 of the TRR Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players – until the end of the competitions, which was until 19 July 2020. Adana holds that on 17 June 2020, it informed the player about such circumstance and informed the player that he had to stay until 19 July 2020 with Balikesir.

25. Also, Adana pointed out that based on art. 19 of the Special Provisions of the Employment Contract stipulated that the player should have given its club 30 days to remedy its default, after several salaries remained outstanding. By only giving 15 days, the player terminated the contract too early, as a result of which the termination is made without just cause.

26. As a result, Adana asked for the rejection of all claims brought forward by the player, and lodged a counterclaim towards him claiming the total amount of EUR 450,000 as residual value of the contract.

27. Might the Chamber deem that the player had a just cause to terminate the contract, Adana asked that the Chamber will award a maximum of EUR 90,000 and to this amount, a “50% pay cut from compensation” should be applied, due to the fact that COVID-19 heavily affected the club’s financial stability.

28. In reply to the counterclaim of Adana, the player argued that Adana, by means of its counterclaim and argumentation submitted therein, had actually a debt of EUR 90,000 towards him. Furthermore, Adana apparently confirmed the fact that it did not integrate the player in the first team of Adana after his request on 3 June 2020.

29. Moreover, the player explains that the correct interpretation of the loan agreement is the following: “the Loan Agreement stipulated that the Player was entitled to all rights arising out of the Employment contract, including but not limited to the right to salaries.” What is more, the player argues that Adana still should have paid him his remuneration as per the contract, irrespective whether Balikesir would have paid Adana the amounts due under the loan agreement.

30. In addition, the player denies to have received Adana’s default notice dated 17 June 2020.

31. As to the allegation of Adana that it could apply the provisions of Turkish laws and regulations for the period of suspension of the football activities, the player stated that Adana failed to provide evidence that such allegations would be true. Also, Adana did not prove that “in Turkey COVID-19 pandemic was considered as a “force majeure” situation”.

32. Moreover, the player explains that his termination was perfectly in line with the contents of art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations and the alternative provisions as per art. 19 of the contract are not a valid deviation of art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations.

33. Further, the player argues that some of the amounts claimed were already overdue before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out.

34. In addition, the player argues that as per the COVID-19 Guidelines, his loan to Balikesir could not extended without his prior permission, and that he had the right to be reintegrated in Adana’s first team. Also, Adana’s request for a 50% reduction of the compensation and salaries to be paid, should be rejected according to the player, as there is no legal or regulator basis for this.

35. In conclusion, the player reiterates his claim and requests for the rejection of the counterclaim of Adana.

36. In reply to the entire case file, the Bosnian club FK Tuzla City failed to submit its comments.

37. The Player and the Bosnian club FK Tuzla City signed an employment agreement, valid from 28 September 2019 until 30 June 2021, according to which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of Bosnian Mark (BAM) 800 (approximately EUR 410).

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 case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 June 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 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 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 June 2020), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake. The matter concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Bosnian player and a Turkish club, with the involvement of a Bosnian club and the competence is not disputed by the parties.

3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2021 edition), and considering that the claim was lodged on 30 June 2020, the June 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, 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 Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that, on 26 July 2019, the player and Adana concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 August 2019 until 31 May 2022. As to the financial terms of said employment contract, the Chamber took note that it had been agreed upon between the parties that Adana would remunerate inter alia the player with 10 monthly salary of EUR 15,000 each for the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 seasons.

6. Equally, the DRC acknowledged that, on 2 September 2019, the player, Adana and Balikesir concluded a loan agreement, based on which the player would be loaned, for the period between 2 September 2019 and 31 May 2020, from Adana to Balikesir. As per the loan agreement, Balikesir would not make any payment to the player, but agreed to pay to Adana a total amount of EUR 175,000, in 10 equal instalments of EUR 17,500 each. Subsequently, the player would remain entitled to his usual salary from Adana, and renounced his right to claim from Adana any rights, other than the ones stipulated in the contract between Adana and him.

7. The members of the Chamber then turned to the claim of the player, who maintained that during the period he was on loan with Balikesir, Adana failed to pay him his monthly remuneration, as a result of which on 3 June 2020, at least 6 monthly salaries for the period between December 2019 and May 2020 remained outstanding. What is more, the player explains that Adana refused to re-integrate him in its team after his loan period with Balikesir expired on 31 May 2020.

8. On 3 June 2020, the player put Adana in default for an amount of EUR 130,000 (corresponding to six monthly salaries and an amount of EUR 40,000 due as per a previous decision of FIFA dated 15 April 2020 (ref. nr. 19-02234)) and asked to be re-integrated in Adana’s team, however nor did the player receive his outstanding amounts, neither was he re-integrated in Adana’s team. As a result, on 19 June 2020, the player unilaterally terminated the contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.

9. In this respect, the DRC noted that Adana is of the opinion that first of all, it could not pay the player his monthly remuneration of EUR 15,000, as Balikesir failed to pay the agreed monthly instalments of EUR 17,500 to Adana. What is more, Adana explains that as per the loan agreement, the player waived to claim any rights from Adana, and that he could only claim, his financial rights as per the contract, after the end of the 2019/2020 season on 31 May 2020. In addition, Adana explains that it deems that the player terminated the contract without just cause, as due to the COVID-19 pandemic and based on FIFA’s COVID-19 Guidelines, the player should have stayed until the end of the extended season in Turkey, i.e. 19 July 2020, with Balikesir. What is more, Adana stated that as per the contract, the player should have granted Adana 30 days to remedy its default, whereas he only gave its club 15 days.

10. As a result of the foregoing, Adana is of the opinion that the player terminated the contract on 19 June 2020 without just cause, and that as a result, it lodged a counterclaim against the player, claiming that it is entitled to compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 450,000.

11. Analysing the circumstances surrounding the termination of the contract, the Chamber first of all recalled that in accordance with art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, the player – who wants to terminate his contract because of outstanding amounts - has to put the club in default in writing and has to grant a deadline of 15 days to the club to fully comply with its financial obligations. What is more, the Chamber also took note of art. 14bis par. 3, which stipulates that ‘collective bargaining agreements validly negotiated by employers’ and employees’ representatives at domestic level in accordance with national law may deviate from the principles stipulated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. The terms of such an agreement shall prevail’.

12. Keeping in mind the above article, as well as the argument of Adana that the player should have granted its club 30 days to make the relevant outstanding payments as per art. 19 of the contract, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that the contract signed by the player and the club cannot be considered as a document that is negotiated between employers’ and employees’ representatives at domestic level in accordance with national law. As such, the Chamber concluded that the standard employment agreement cannot deviate from the conditions laid down in art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations

13. Furthermore, the Chamber turned its attention to Adana’s argumentation that it could not pay the player the salaries he was entitled to as per the contract, as Balikesir failed to pay the agreed 10 instalments of EUR 17,500 each. In this respect, the Chamber wished to point out that as per the contents of the contract and the loan agreement, it appeared that there was no connection between the payment obligations from Balikesir towards Adana, and the payment obligations from Adana towards the player. In other words, the Chamber concluded that the that the fact that Balikesir was in default of its payments to Adana, does not exempt Adana from its obligation to timely pay the player the remuneration he was entitled to.

14. Moreover, as to the interpretation of the clause laid down in article 3 of the loan agreement, which according to Adana would prevent the player from claiming any outstanding monies earlier than the end of the 2019/2020 season, the Chamber deemed that the interpretation of the clause should be that the player and Adana agreed that the player would not claim any other remuneration, then the remuneration due to him as per the contract dated 26 July 2019.

15. The members of the Chamber further took note of Adana’s argument that the season in Turkey – due to the COVID-19 pandemic - was extended until 19 July 2020 and that the player – as per the CVOID-19 Guidelines - should have been obliged to stay with Balikesir, the club where he was on loan. In this respect, Adana also pointed out that the player was informed in writing about said circumstance on 17 June 2020, a circumstance which is not backed with documentary evidence and which is denied by the player.

16. In this respect, the Chamber wished to refer to the contents of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and the FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, based on which – in case the season in a country is extended as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic - there exists a strong recommendation from FIFA that ‘priority be given to the former club to complete its domestic season with its original squad, in order to safeguard the integrity of its competition(s)’. This recommendation would lead to the possible extension of loan and employment agreements. However, the Chamber wished to point out that the contractual autonomy of the parties is leading and that a player cannot be forced, without his prior approval, to accept an extension of the loan agreement, in case he would want to return to his club of origin.

17. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the player had the right to be integrated in the team of Adana in June 2019, as he apparently did not want to extend his employment with Balikesir. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject Adana’s argumentation that it could not reintegrate the player in its team after the expiry of the original duration of the loan contract, as he was allegedly still on loan with Balikesir until 19 July 2020.

18. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that on 19 June 2020, Adana did not satisfy its outstanding debts in the amount of EUR 90,000, despite having been informed by the player by means if his default letter dated 3 June 2020, as a result of which on said date an amount of EUR 90,000, corresponding to six monthly salaries, remained outstanding. Moreover, several of these outstanding salaries were already due before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

19. Recalling the provisions set out in art. 14bis par. 1 according to which in the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s), the Chamber concluded that the player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract 1on 19 June 2020.

20. As a result, Adana is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract and should bear the consequences thereof.

21. Having established that Adana is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such breach of contract. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive from Adana an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant contract, if any.

22. The Chamber then reverted to the player’s claim, from which it clearly follows that at the day of the unilateral termination of the contract, 19 June 2020, an amount of EUR 90,000 – corresponding to the unpaid salaries for the period between January and June 2020 - remained outstanding, the non-payment of which is not contested by Adana. As a result, the Chamber decided to award said amount as outstanding remuneration to the player.

23. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 90,000 as from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment.

24. In continuation, the Chamber focussed its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by either contractual party in the event of breach of contract. In this respect, the members of the Chamber concluded that no such clause was present in the contract.

26. As a consequence, 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 the said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body.

27. 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 employment contract until 31 May 2022. In this respect, the Chamber noted that after the unilateral termination of the contract on 19 June 2020, the contract was supposed to run for another two years, i.e. until 31 May 2022, during which two seasons he was entitled to a yearly salary of EUR 150,000. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that it did not take into account the potential bonus and/or higher salary the player would have been entitled to would Adana play in the Turkish Super League in one of the two upcoming seasons. Said circumstance is speculative and could not be established yet at the moment of the decision at hand.

28. Based on the foregoing circumstances, the members of the Chamber decided that the residual value of the contract until 31 May 2022, corresponds to the total amount of EUR 300,000.

29. 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, 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.

30. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player was able to sign a new employment contract, with the Bosnian club FK Tuzla, valid for the period between 28 September 2019 and 30 June 2021, based on which he was entitled to a monthly salary of Bosnian convertible Mark (BAM) 800 (approximately EUR 400). For the corresponding overlapping period, this amounted to the total salary of EUR 8,610, which shall in principle be mitigated from the amount of EUR 300,000.

31. Moreover, the DRC analysed whether the player was entitled to additional compensation, in the context of art. 17 par 1. lit ii of the Regulations, which provides for additional compensation only in case the player was able to mitigate his damage and the early termination of the contract being due to overdue payables. From the circumstances of the case, the members of the Chamber were convinced that said criteria were met and that the player is in principle entitled to an additional compensation of EUR 45,000, consisting of three monthly salaries of EUR 15,000 each. However, keeping in mind the wording of art. 17 par 1. lit ii of the Regulations, which stipulates that ‘the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract’, the Chamber decided that the maximum amount of compensation that can be awarded to the player amounts to EUR 300,000.

32. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that Adana must pay the amount of EUR 300,000 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.

33. Furthermore, in accordance with its established jurisprudence and taking into account the request of the player, the Chamber further decided that interest at the rate of 5% p.a. was to be applied over the amount of EUR 300,000 as from 27 May 2020, i.e. the date of the claim.

34. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected, as well as that the counterclaim of Adana is rejected.

35. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, 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.

36. In this regard, the Chamber 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.

37. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that Adana 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 Adana, 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 Adana in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

38. Finally, the Chamber 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 DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Nermin Hodzic, is partially accepted.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Adana Demirspor, is rejected.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the following amounts:

- EUR 90,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. until the effective date of payment as follows:

o on the amount of EUR 15,000 as from 1 January 2020;

o on the amount of EUR 15,000 as from 1 February 2020;

o on the amount of EUR 15,000 as from 1 March 2020;

o on the amount of EUR 15,000 as from 1 April 2020;

o on the amount of EUR 15,000 as from 1 May 2020;

o on the amount of EUR 15,000 as from 1 June 2020.

- EUR 300,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 May 2020 until the effective date of payment.

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

5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the due amount.

6. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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 / Counter-Claimant within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:

 1.

The Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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:

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